1. ' This petition is addressed under section 44 of the Interim Constitution Act, 1974.
2. ' The facts culminating in the present petition briefly stated are that a notification was issued on May 29, 1995 for initiating proceedings under the provisions of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977 against the petitioner and three other officers for misconduct and misappropriation of Tarcoal in certain stores of P.W.D. Rawalakot Division. One Ch. Muhammad Afzal, Chief Engineer (Road) was appointed as Inquiry Officer who in the light of the complaint, issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner on May 30, 1995. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on January 12, 1995. After inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found petitioner innocent as such he recommended that the charge against him be dropped.
3. ' Secretary works in his capacity as Authorised Officer issued various notices to the petitioner for the purpose of hearing, but for one or other reason hearing was postponed. Ultimately on December 14, 1995 the petitioner was given right of audience. The Authorised Officer also concurred with the finding of the Inquiry Officer. Secretary, Services and General Administration, later on, heard the petitioner on behalf of the Authority and recommended that the petitioner be censured and two Annual Increments be stopped for his negligence. The Prime Minister in his capacity as an Authority did not agree with the Secretary, Services and ordered that only warning be issued to the petitioner. Despite clear order of the Prime Minister when the formal notification in respect of proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the provisions contained in (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules was not issued, he was constrained to file instant writ petition before this Court.
4. ' I have gone through the record of the present petition.
5. ' In written statement it has been admitted that the Worthy Prime Minister has issued only warning to the petitioner. However, the case of the respondents is that the whole file is pending before the Prime Minister. No document has been placed on the record. Even the copy of the representation by Muhammad Najeeb has not been made available on the record. It is, therefore, difficult for this Court to ascertain as to whether Muhammad Najeeb has made any representation against the petitioner or his representation is awaiting disposal in respect of the proceedings which were initiated against him.
6. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the proceedings under (Efficiency and Discipline)
7. Rules, 1977 which were initiated against the petitioner on May 29, 1995 were finalized almost one and half years before. But without any legal justification a notification to that fact has not been issued. According to him, the respondents cannot keep a case pending for an unlimited period of time.
8. ' Controverting the arguments the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that under Rules of Business no time limit is fixed for the purpose of any act as such petitioner cannot raise any objection that why a notification favorable to him at the end of the proceedings has not been issued.
9. Respective arguments were considered by me. In the background of the facts of this case and documents made available on record it is true that no period has been fixed under rules of Business for the issuance of any notification or for the purpose of the function allocated to different authorities and functionaries of the Government. However, I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter could not be kept pending for indefinite period of time. Such exercise of jurisdiction on the part of any functionaries of the Government under the provisions of the Rules of Business shall be arbitrary and unguided.
10. ' This petition was filed before this Court on March 24, 1997. In sub-para. (f) of para. 14 the petitioner pleaded as under:-- "That the petitioner apprehends that the respondents jointly and severally for mala fide reasons will tamper the relevant proceedings initiated against the petitioner which had been finalised almost a year ago. In the given circumstances the petitioner is indulging the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Honourable Court."
11. ' This sub-para. Was not specifically replied by the respondents through para. No, 14 of the written statement. Only it has been written in para. No, 14 that detailed reply has been submitted in para. No, 11 of the written statement. Para. No, 11 of the written statement reads as under:-- "That para. No, 11 of the writ petition is not correct. The Inquiry Officer (Secretary Services) recommended that the petitioner be censured and his two Annual increments be stopped as punishment for negligence and ignorance. However, the worthy Prime Minister, at that time ordered that only warning be issued to the petitioner. This order of the Worthy Prime Minister was being implemented. However, in the meantime the file was again asked for by the Prime Minister. One Muhammad Najeeb has filed a representation before the Worthy Prime Minister, so the file 'has been placed. Before Worthy Prime Minister. Any further proceedings shall be initiated on receipt of file from Worthy Prime Minister."
12. ' The perusal of this reply makes it clear that the matter is sub judice in respect of some representation which was made by one Muhammad Najeeb. The petitioner's case has been linked with the case of Muhammad Najeeb. It has not been pleaded in the written statement nor any document has been brought on the record that how petitioner's case is linked with the case of Muhammad Najeeb to justify the delay in the issuance of the relevant Notification in favour of the petitioner.
13. The procedure contained in Civil Procedure Code is applicable in writ jurisdiction. The evasive reply under Order 8, Rule 5, C.P.C. Is not B considered denial in law. In the case of the present petitioner, all proceedings under (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules ended in his favour. The respondents under the provisions contained in Rules of Business were required to act according to the order passed by the Worthy Prime Minister in his capacity as competent Authority or to resubmit the case to the Prime Minister for reconsideration, if in their wisdom the order passed by the Worthy Prime Minister was violative of any rules or contrary to the facts on the record or against the Government policy. It is clear from the pleadings of the respondents that the matter was not resubmitted to the Worthy Prime Minister for reconsideration nor the respondents intend to do so in future.
7. In these circumstances petitioner has rightly invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court through this writ petition with a prayer that respondents may be directed to implement the order of the Worthy Prime Minister. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "S.N.H. Rizvi v. Maqsood Ahmad" (PLD 1981 SC 612) has held that in case when the matter is not finalised by the competent Authority, a civil servant after waiting for a reasonable time can seek constitutional remedy for a direction to the Departmental Authority to perform a duty enjoined upon it by law.
14. In the light of above facts while accepting this Constitutional petition I am constrained to direct the respondents to issue notification in respect of proceedings which were initiated against the petitioner under (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1977 in accordance with the order passed by the Worthy Prime Minister. However, in view of the peculiar facts and practice adopted in Azad Kashmir no order is passed in this case as to costs.