KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.-- Petitioner, basically a Civil Judge First Class but working as Deputy Solicitor, Government of the Punjab, was dismissed from service by Notification dated 28.9.2001, under Rule 11(1) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999, issued under the signatures of Registrar of this Court. Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner challenges the validity of the Notification.
2. Learned counsel at the very outset was confronted with the question of ground that a Judge of the High Court cannot issue a writ against the orders passed by the High Court and also on the ground of availability of alternative remedy before the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal. Learned counsel, pointed out that as I was the Member of the Administration Committee, which decided to dismiss the petitioner, ( should not hear the case. It was pointed out to the learned counsel that if he could show that the petition was maintainable, the case would be sent to another Bench.
3. By referring to certain provisions of the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994 as also Lahore High Court Rules and Orders Volume-V, Chapter 10-A, Rule 1 and Article 192/199 of the Constitution, learned counsel attempted to show that the Administration Committee is a separate entity and as such an entity its decisions are subject to judicial review. He has submitted that when a Judge, of this Court acts as a Custodian, his orders; can be challenged in the High Court under the power of judicial review, In support, he has relied on Abrar Hassan y: Government of Pakistan and another (PLD 1976 S.C. 315 at page 318).
4. All these aspects have been thoroughly examined in the Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported as Asif Saeed v. Registrar Lahore High Court and others (PLD 1999 SC 350). The sum of total of all the discussion and the case-law is that if a Judge acts in relation to the functions of the High Court or exercises the authority conferred on the High Court, his orders cannot be subjected to judicial review. However, if a Judge acts in any other capacity unconnected with the High Court, his orders/decisions may be examined Under Article 199 of the Constitution, In this case High Court is the appointing "Authority" within the meaning of Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994 and Authority in respect of all the Judicial Officers under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999. Reference may also be made to the West Pakistan High Court Delegation of Powers Rules, 1960, as amended by Punjab Government Notification dated 9.1.1991, whereunder High Court has been delegated the powers of Authority under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency . And Discipline)
Rules, 1975, (now repealed by the 1999 Rules), whereunder the present disciplinary action against the petitioner has been taken. This legal position gets further support from the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 22.11.2O0O passed in Sh. Ikram-ud-Din (Ex-Additional District and Sessions Judge v: Province of Punjab (CPLA No. 1029-L of 1998). The High Court otherwise has the power of superintendence and control over all the subordinate Courts/Judges. In the- impugned notification it is power of the High Court which has been exercised by the Chief Justice and Judges. This petition, therefore, is held to be not maintainable.
5. Additionally the petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal before Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal. Appeal is otherwise a comprehensive and adequate remedy as the Appellate Court/Tribunal can even review the material and substitute a finding of fact. The availability of alternative remedy has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. This petition is held to be not maintainable and is dismissed in limine.