CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the Assistant Education Officer Multan approached the petitioner with the proposal that in case the petitioner is interested to get the employment in Education Department then he will manage the post of the petitioner as peon in Education Department suffect to the condition, that the petitioner shall give him gratification amounting to Rs.30.000/-. The offer was accepted by the petitioner and acted upon. Consequently the petitioner was appointed as peon in Middle School Thatti Kohavvran.
Multan Markaz Sadar. The petitioner assumed the charge and worked there for more than seven months and received the pay from the Department. Respondent No.-l terminated the services of the petitioner vide officer order dated 6.5.1997 which is to the following effect:- "Reference favour Memo. No. Nill. Dated Nil subject cited above.
Order No. 32/3 Adtnn. Dated............. 96 for the transfer of-Nasir Nawaz Class IV has not been issued by this Directorate. An FIR should be got registered against Nasir Nawaz s/o Muhammad Nawaz for producing bogus orders, under intimation to this Directorate.
The respondents find report and parawise comments and stated that as a result of scrutiny it transpired that the transfer order of the petitioner was bogus so respondent No. 1 directed to the Headmaster Government-Girls Middle School Thatti Kahawran. Multan to register FIR against the petitioner according to law and the petitioner was relieved. The allegation of accepting Rs.30.000 - as illegal gratification from the petitioner was denied. The report further revealed that respondent No. 2 Asstt. Education Officer has taken over the charge on 1.1.1997. Whereas the petitioner joined his services five months before respondent taken over the charge. The respondent have taken preliminary objection that the petitioner has alternative remedy before the Department and this Court has no jurisdiction by virtue of Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was appointed by the respondents therefore vested right accrued to him. The service, of the petitioner cannot be terminated cancelled except in accordance with Efficiency & Discipline Rules. The order of termination was passed without providing him personal hearing. Therefore, the order is without lawful authority. He relied upon the following judgments.
(1) "Ghulam Murtaza r. Commissioner of Income Tax Wealth Tax (NLR 1997 Service 89)
(2) "Yousaf Ali v. Govt, of Punjab (NLR 1997 Service 34)
(3) "Karachi Port Trust v. Altaf Ahmad and another (1996 SC.MR 1205)
3. 1 have given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner himself admitted that he obtained the service by giving illegal gratification of Rs.30.000/- to respondent No. 2. Meaning thereby the petitioner through this writ petition wants a benefit of his own misdeeds. The conduct of the petitioner is such that discretionary relief cannot be granted to him. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief. I am fortified by the judgments reported as Wali Muhammad & others v. Sakhi Muhammad & others (PLD 1974 S.C. 106).
Tufail Muhammad A others v. Muhammad Zia Vllah Khan & others (PLD 1965 S.C. 269) and Abdur Rasheed v. Pakistan & others (1969 SCMR 141). It is also admitted fact that the petitioner joined the service of the Government, therefore writ petition is not maintainable as law declared by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the following judgments:-
(i) (PLD 1980 S.C. 22)
(ii) (PLD 1988 S.C. 387)
(iii) (PLD 1989 S.C. 508)
(iv) (1997 PLC (CS) 776)
The petitioner has alternate remedy under (he provisions of Punjab Civil Servants Act. 1974.
Therefore writ petition is not maintainable, as is held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as Ch. Muhammad Ismaeel r. Fazed Zada. Civil Judge. Lahore (PLD 1996 S.C. 246).
4. The petitioner has levelled serious allegation against respondent No. 2 that he got the appointment by giving illegal gratification amounting to Rs. 30.000/-. Respondent No. 1 is directed to find out the reality in accordance with law.
5. In view of what has been discussed above, die petitioner may approach the competent authority for redress of his Grievance in accordance with law. If he so advised.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.