' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner was appointed as junior clerk by the respondents on 31-10-1985. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted as senior clerk by the respondents. One Ijaz Hussain son of Allah Baldish filed a complaint on 15-2-1999 before respondent No,
1. The contents of complaint reveal that an amount of Rs,10,000 as illegal gratification was paid to the petitioner by the complainant as well as Muhammad Ashraf, Naib Qasid for getting his son namely Anjum Abbas, student of D. Com. Part-1 exonerated from an unfair case. Respondent No,1 on 16-2-1999 appointed Mr. Muhammad Siddique, Chief Instructor of the Government. Commercial Training Institute Lahore to probe into the matter who submitted his report with recommendation that proceedings be initiated against the petitioner under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Respondent No,1 appointed Dr. Irshad Ahmad Farrukh, Principal Government College for Science as Authorised Officer who appointed Professor Mukhtar Ali Khan as Inquiry Officer. The charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner alongwith the allegations. The petitioner submitted reply of the charge-sheet, controverted the allegations levelled in the charge- sheet and took a stand that an amount of Rs,10,000 was obtained on loan basis as is evident from copy of pronote and statement attached with the reply by the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty and submitted report to the Authorised Officer. Authorised Officer issued show- cause notice to the petitioner on 11-11-1999. The petitioner submitted reply to the show-cause notice on 18-11-1999. Personal hearing was granted to the petitioner by the competent authority on 22-11-1999. The petitioner requested to the competent authority to place on record certain documents which were allowed by the competent authority. The Authorised Officer sent final show-cause notice to the petitioner on 22-11-1999. The petitioner also submitted reply to the show- cause notice controverted the allegations levelled in the show-cause notice. The Authorised Officer recommended major penalty of removal from service of the petitioner to the competent authority.
The competent authority respondent No,1 after receiving the recommendations of the Authorised Officer sent a notice for personal hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before respondent No, 1 . The petitioner got recorded his statement before the respondent No,l. The petitioner was removed from service by the respondent No,1 on 24-12-1999. The petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the Board who also dismissed the same after providing personal hearing to the petitioner vide its meeting held on 3-5-2000 and intimation was also sent to the petitioner on 23-5-2000, hence the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that case was also registered against the petitioner qua the same incident which is pending adjudication in the Court of Special Judge Anti- Corruption Lahore and the trial thereof as yet has not commenced. He further submits that during the pendency of the trial the departmental action of the respondent against the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his contention he relied upon 1983 PLC (C.S.) 1127) Majid Abbas Rizvi v. Superintendent of Police Bahawalpur), 1984 PLC (C.S.) 287 (Rauf Ahmad v. Secretary to Government of Punjab Communication and Works Department and 50 others). He further submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that inquiry was conducted by a biased officer. This fact was not considered by the competent authority as well as the appellate authority. He further submits that petitioner produced additional written defence before respondent No,1 at the time of personal hearing but the respondent No,1 did not consider the same at the time of passing the impugned order. He further submits that petitioner has rendered 14/15 years blotless service as such the penalty imposed by the respondents is very much harsh and excessive being not commensurate to the situation.
3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the principle of master and servant is attracted in the present case. He further submits that respondents did not violate their rules and regulations. He further submits that both the Tribunals below had decided the case concurrently against the petitioner in accordance with law after applying their independent mind without any bias.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself. It is settled proposition of law that departmental and criminal proceedings can go side by side and are not dependent upon each other. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-- (1989 SCMR 316 (Muhammad Tufail Commissioner/Collector).
1989 SCMR 333 (Amir Abdullah v. Superintendent of Police an others).
1993 SCMR 2177 (Talib Hussain v. Anar Gul Khan and others).
' PLD 1985 SC 134 (Deputy Inspector-General of Police and others v. Anisur Rehman Khan).
' The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out that respondents passed the order against the petitioner in violation of their rules and regulations. It is settled proposition of law where the impugned orders were passed in accordance with the rules and regulation of the respondents then the Constitutional petition is not maintainable. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments: ' 1984 SCMR 433 (Muharram Ali v. Government of Punjab) and 1988 SCMR 1711 (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Sargodha v. Abdur Rehman).
' The petitioner has alleged general allegation of mala fide against the respondents. It is settled proposition of law that general allegation of mala fide is not sustainable in the eye of law. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the law laid down in the following judgments:- ' PLD 1974 SC 151 (Saeed Ahmad Khan's case) and PLD 1990 SC 1092 (Aman Ullah Khan's case).
It is also admitted fact that petitioner has alleged mala fide against the Inquiry Officer and the Authorised Officer as respondents, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Azhar Ali's case PLD 1971 Lahore 972 and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rameez-ul-Haq's case PLD 1992 SC 221.
' In view of what has been discussed above this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.