' SHAUKAT HUSSAIN ZUBEDI, J.---The petitioner was employed with the Pakistan Television Corporation as Junior T.V. Licence Inspector vide appointment letter dated 11-11-1979 and was posted with the Controller, Central Sales Office, Karachi. The petitioner's job was later on re- designated as Inspector. His services were governed by the Pakistan Television Corporation Limited Employees Service Rules, hereinafter called the said rules which has been published in the Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary dated 25th May, 1978 being SRO 639(1)78 and all matters pertaining to appointment, termination, etc are governed by these Rules.
2. The petitioner was directed by his Head Quarters to proceed on tour with effect from 23-9-1984 to 16-10-1984, but the petitioner wilfully disobeyed the order of his superiors. For this misconduct, the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet dated 11-11-1984 and was called upon to submit his written reply to the said charge of misconduct. The petitioner submitted his written reply on 29-11- 1984.
3. On 14-1-1985 another charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner for making a false statement against an employee of the Corporation in his letter dated 15-7-1984 addressed to the Managing Director. The petitioner was directed to submit his written reply to the said charge. The same was replied in writing by the petitioner through his letter dated 26-1-1985.
4. The petitioner was again directed by the Head Quarters to proceed on tour to Islamabad with effect from 5-11-1984 to 15-11-1984, this direction was also disobeyed by the petitioner, with the result a fresh charge-sheet dated 26-1-1985 was issued to the petitioner and once again he was required to submit his written reply to the said charge, the same was replied by him under a written explanation dated 31-1-1985.
5. As three charge-sheets were issued to the petitioner, which were duly replied by him, but the explanation furnished by the petitioner was not found satisfactory. Therefore, an enquiry was ordered against the petitioner which was to be conducted by Mr. Zaffar Ahmad, Accounts Officer, who was nominated as the Enquiry Officer. After the completion of the enquiry, respondent No,3, vide his letter dated 31-7-1985 terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from 1-8-1985.
6. Against the order of termination, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Managing Director. Respondent No, 2 on 26-10-1985 as provided under P.T.V. Service Rules but the result was never conveyed to the petitioner.
7. It is in these circumstances the petitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
(a) To declare that the proceedings of inquiry instituted and carried against the petitioner by respondent No, 3 was unjustified and illegal, without any lawful authority and is of no legal effect.
(b) To declare that all the orders of suspension passed by respondent No 3 from 26-1-1985 to 30-7- 1985 against the petitioner are ultra vires and without lawful authority and of on legal effect.
(c) To declare that the termination of the petitioner done by respondent No, 3 through letter dated 31-7-1985 is illegal and has been ordered without any lawful authority and is of no legal effect,.
Therefore is liable to be quashed.
(d) To direct respondent No, 2 to re-instate the petitioner on his post from 1-8-1985, being the date of termination of his services, with all the back benefits.
(e) To grant any other relief and reliefs deemed proper by this Honourable Court, under the circumstances of the case.
8. We have heard Mr. Shamsuddin Khalid Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rehan Aqeel, learned counsel for the respondents. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the entire material available on record and so also the service rules governing the terms and conditions of the petitioner's service.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was posted in the Central Sales Office of Pakistan Television Corporation and under Rule 1.05 Controller of Sales was the head of Central Sales Office while Controller of Administration and Personnel was the head of the Headquarters Office. As such he has pointed out that these are two separate units which are headed by two different officers as provided by the said Rule 1.05 read with Rule 3.38. He has therefore argued that for all practical purposes the petitioner's head of the office was Controller of Sales and therefore the various charge-sheets, holding of enquiry and the letter of termination could not be issued by the Controller, Administration and Personnel as he was not the head of office/unit of the petitioner. In this regard the learned counsel has referred to Rule 12.04 of the said Rules which states that "Administrative head of a unit can order the termination of service of employees in Gibups 1 to 3 of his respective unit". He has, therefore, submitted that the entire procedure adopted by the authorities is bad in law, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
10. On the other hand Mr. Rehan Aqeel, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the action taken by the respondent against the petitioner is legal and proper. The Controller Administration and Personnel was the Appointing Authority of the petitioner and he has signed all the charge-sheets and also the letter of termination therefore the action taken against the petitioner was in accordance with the prescribed Rules. He has further argued that under Rule 15.10 of the said Rules, the petitioner had a remedy before the Chairman, Industrial Relations Commission, which was not availed therefore this petition was not maintainable as the petitioner, had an alternate remedy. He has further submitted that under an Office Order/Circular No HP/113(E)/561, dated 1-2-1985, all T.V. Licence Inspectors are placed in the staff strength of the Revenue Department of the Finance Division of Pakistan Television Headquarter Office, Islamabad therefore under Rule 13.04 (b)(III) Controller of Administration and personnel at the instance of "Competent Authority "had issued the charge-sheet and so also the termination order of the petitioner, It was further submitted that after the charge-sheets were issued, the petitioner gave his explanation which was not found satisfactory, therefore an enquiry was ordered in which the petitioner participated and it is only after the Enquiry Officer submitted his report that the impugned order of termination was passed.
' At the very outset we may observe that the terms and conditions of the petitioner's service are governed by the Pakistan Television Corporation Limited Employees Service Rules which has been published in the Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary dated 25-5-1978. In order to appreciate the points raised in this petition, it will be beneficial to refer to some of the Rules. As per Rule 1.04, the Managing Director is the "Competent Authority" to implement rules for the Corporation and its employees. Under Rule 1.05, the Managing Director appoints the Administrative Heads of the respective units. For instance, the head of the "Central Sales Office" is the Controller of Sales" and the head of the Headquarters office" is Controller of Administration and Personnel" and so on. The term "Unit" has been defined under Rules 3.38, it means includes any of the following:
(1) Headquarters Office,
(2) Central Sales Office,
(3) A Television Centre,
(4) A Transmission Station.
' It may be mentioned that under Rule 1.02, "Headquarter Office" is situated at Rawalpindi while "Central Sales Office" is in Karachi. The post of the employees of the respondent Corporatrion have been divided into 9 Groups as provided by Rule 4.12 and the posts can be added or deleted to and from any or each of the above groups as per Rule 4.13. The petitioner is placed in Group 3. The Officers empowered to order issuance of charge-sheets are mentioned in Rule 13.03 and are to be signed by officer mentioned in Rule 13.04. The termination of an employee falling in Groups 1 to 3 can be ordered by the Administrative Head of the respective Unit.
' It is the case of the petitioner that the various charge-sheets issued to him were not ordered by the Competent Authority under the Rules nor was it signed by the Administrative Head of the Unit where he was posted. According to the petitioner, he was posted at the "Central Sales Office"
Karachi and under Rule 1.05 (1), "Controller of Sales" was the administrative Head of the Central Sales Office, therefore, the charge-sheet could be ordered to be issued against the petitioner by the "Controller of Sales" whereas the charge-sheets dated 11-11-1984, 14-1-1985 and 26-1-1985 were not signed and issued by the "Controller of Sales" but these were signed by "Controller, Administration and Personnel" who was not the Administrative Head of the petitioner. Similarly, the contention of the petitioner in respect of the impugned termination letter dated 31-7-1985 was to the effect that it was not signed by the Head of the Unit where the petitioner was posted therefore it was issued and signed in violation of Rule 12.04 under which the Administrative Head of a unit can order the termination of service of employees in Groups 1 to 3 of his respective unit. While controverting the stand taken by the petitioner the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in their counter- affidavit to this petition have stated that the respondent No, 3 was the competent authority to issue the aforesaid charge-sheets, as per the service Rules and after considering the reply to the charge sheets, the report of the Enquiry Officer who gave full and fair opportunity to the petitioner in the said enquiry proceedings, it is only thereafter that the impugned termination order was issued. It is further mentioned in the counter-affidavit that all T.V. Licence Inspectors employed by the respondent were placed in the staff strength of the "Revenue Department of.The Finance Division of the Pakistan Television Headquarters Office, Islamabad" and in this regard an Office Order/Circular No, HP/113(E)/561, dated 1-2-1985 was issued, photocopy of the same is placed on record. It may be observed that the petitioner did not file any affidavit in rejoinder to the counter-affidavit of the respondents.
' After taking into consideration the points raised by the learned counsel and after going through the various provisions as contained in the Service Rules, who are of the view that the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are misconceived based on misreading of the relevant Rules.
' Rule 13.03 empowers certain officers who can order issuance of a charge sheet against employees serving in their departments at a Unit other than Headquarters Office and so also at Headquarter Office. This Rule does not lay down that a charge-sheet is to be issued only by such officer as are mentioned therein and by none other. This can be gathered from the very opening line of this rule which says "The following Officers can order issuance of a charge-sheet" the words can order in the aforesaid except from Rule 13.03 provides that the category of Officers mentioned therein are empowered to order issuance of a charge-sheet. Rule 13.03 is divided in two parts, in the first part, it is .The "Head. Of Department" or the "Administrative Head" who can order issuance of a charge-sheet to all employees serving in their department, in Group 6 or below. It may be mentioned that once an order is given for issuance of a charge-sheet, thereafter Rule 13.04 will come into operation which lays down "who" actually has to issue the charge-sheet. In other words, rule 13.03 authorises certain officers to order issuance of a charge-sheet while Rule 13.04 provides who shall issue the said charge-sheet.
Rule 13.04 clearly provides that---"Charge-sheets shall be issued from Administration Department at units and at Headquarters Office."---. The plain reading of Rules 13.03 read with Rule 13.04 clearly provides that once an order for issuance of a charge-sheet is made, thereafter under Rule 13.04 the said charge-sheet shall be issued either (a) by the Administration Department and (b) by the Headquarters Office. Under Rule 13.04 (b)(ii), the Controller of Administration and Personnel is also empowered to sign the charge-sheets issued to employees in Group 6 or below. It, therefore, follows that it is not necessary that the charge-sheet issued to an employee must be signed by the Administrative Head of his Department and not by the Controller Administration and personnel as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
' It may be noted that it is not the case of the petitioner that the Administrative Head of his Unit had not ordered the issuance of charge-sheet against him. The petitioner's grievance is that it was not issued by the competent authority. We have already discussed as aforesaid that the charge- sheets were issued and signed by an officer competent to do so as provided by Rule 13.04.
' The next contention of the petitioner that the termination order dated 31-7-1985 is illegal and has been ordered without any lawful authority is also devoid of any force. Suffice to say that apart from Rule 12.04 whereby the Administrative head of a Unit can order termination of service of employees falling in Groups 1 to 3, the same powers are also enjoyed by the Managing Director as per Rule 12.05. In the counter-affidavit of the respondent, it has been mentioned that as per Office order dated 1-2-1985 bearing No, HP/113 (E)/561 all T.V. Licence Inspectors have been placed in the staff strength of the Revenue Department of the Finance Division of the Pakistan Television Headquarters Office, Islamabad and Mr. Matiur Rehman Mirza who was the overall head of the Finance Division being Finance Director, had ordered the termination of service of the petitioner. Accordingly, the termination letter dated 31-7-1985 was issued. The perusal of the said termination letter clearly indicates in its para. 3 that "the competent authority has ordered termination of the service of Mr. Muhammad Ajmal Khan from the Corporation with effect from 1-8-1985". These circumstances clearly indicate that the petitioner's services were terminated by the competent authority.
The petitioner has also raised other points as mentioned in the memo. Of his petition, but those are disputed question of fact which cannot be determined by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. So far as the appeal of the petitioner before the Managing Director is concerned, the same was not accepted vide letter dated 4-11-1985. Against the said order, the petitioner could have preferred a petition before the Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission for the redress of his grievance within 2 months of accrual of the cause of action as provided by Rule 15.10 instead the petitioner has approached this Court.
' In the light of our above discussion, we do not find any merits in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.