The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has prayed inter alia for a declaration that the petitioner has been condemned unheard by the authority while exercising powers under Rule 6(a) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 and for the Authorised Officer is required by law to wait the decision on the representation moved by the petitioner and arrange for adequate opportunity of hearing of the petitioner before the authority and also prayed for direction inter alia that the Authorised Officer be restrained from proceeding further on the basis of impugned show-cause notice until the decision of the representation and direction to the Establishment Secretary to transmit the representation to the authority with a direction to the Federation to ensure that the finding of guilt recorded by the authority against the petitioner was not effectuated until and unless the petitioner has had an opportunity of hearing before the authority. The petition came up for limine hearing on 6th of July, 1998 when copy of the petition was made over to the learned Deputy Attorney-General to obtain instructions and assist the Court. The order has been complied.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been condemned unheard by the authority, therefore, the order is illegal. It is added that although the petitioner has made a representation but the same is not being disposed of, therefore, a direction may be issued to the authority.
3. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Attorney-General argued that the representation was sent through post on 2nd of July, 1998 while the writ petition was filed on 4th of July, 1998 with the result that the authority was not given any time for decision of the representation. It was added that the representation shall be decided in accordance with law and rules in the light of Appeal Rules, 1977.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The dispute is essentially relatable to the terms and conditions of service for which the Service Tribunal is the appropriate remedy even in respect of interlocutory orders. Moreover, the petitioner rushed to this Court by filing the present writ petition without waiting for a reasonable time for decision on his representation. The bar of Article 212 of the Constitution is squarely attracted to a disciplinary matter. No jurisdictional defect was pointed out as to the lack of competence in the departmental authorities to take the impugned proceedings. All questions of law and facts can be taken before the Service Tribunal if an order is passed by a departmental authority. See the cases of Muhammad Yamin v. Government Pakistan (PLD 1980 SC 22) and I.A. Sherwani v. Federation of Pakistan (1991 SCM R 1041). The learned counsel failed to point out that the matter did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal.
5. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed in limine. The respondents are, however, directed to deal with the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and the rules.