TAHIR JAMIL BUTT vs Mian JEHANGIR PERVEZ and another

ORDER

' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment and, order, dated 13-11-1998, whereby a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed a Constitution Petition filed by the petitioner assailing the order of the Inquiry Officer, who declined to allow the petitioner to cross- examine two witnesses.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is a Civil Judge and is facing a departmental inquiry being conducted against him by the District and Sessions Judge, Sialkot. The inquiry was in progress against the petitioner and on 21, 22 and 23-5-1997, interim orders were passed by the Inquiry Officer. These orders reveal that the petitioner at one stage refused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. Assurance was given to the petitioner that after production of the record, if it was necessary, the prosecution witnesses would be recalled for cross-examination. On 23-5-1997 the petitioner did not appear and it came to the notice of the Inquiry Officer that he was working in Court at Rawalpindi. On 19-6-1997, the petitioner again did not appear and sought adjournment on account of pain in his back and in support thereof he also produced some prescriptions through the Process Server. The Inquiry Officer was also informed that the petitioner on account of his transfer from Rawalpindi to Attock was in a hurry, and therefore, could not appear before the Inquiry Officer. The District and Sessions Judge, the Inquiry Officer, found these excuses as lame because the petitioner on the relevant date was working in his Court. In this view of the matter. The Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the absence of the petitioner was deliberate and, thus, he decided to proceed against the petitioner under rule 7 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The petitioner then filed an application seeking review of the orders passed by the Inquiry Officer on 22 and 23-5-1997 for proceeding against the petitioner under sub-rule (4) of rule 7 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The learned Inquiry Officer rejected the review application on the ground that he had no power to review and that the petitioner was negligent and had deliberately absented himself.

3. Aggrieved by the said orders, dated 19-6-1997 passed by the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner assailed the same through a Constitutional Petition, which was dismissed vide order impugned.

4. We have heard the learned counsel at length and we are of the view that it was rightly held by the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court that it was beyond his jurisdiction to interfere in the matter on account of bar of jurisdiction contained in Article 212 of the Constitution because the matter related to the enforcement of the terms and conditions of service. The learned Judge also rightly opined that an appeal was maintainable before the Subordinat, Judiciary Services Tribunal, and therefore, these points could be urged in appeal. The learned Judge also correctly placed reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No,3963 of 1992 whereby the High Court had declined to interfere with the interim order passed by the Inquiry Officer in inquiry proceedings.

5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.