Dr. Asad Ali Khan Vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary Civil Secretarit Peshawar and others

JUDGMENT SHEET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P. No.2260-P/2026 Dr. Asad Ali Khan Vs.

Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat Peshawar and others

Date of hearing 10.03.2026 For Petitioner(s): Mr. Hassnain Tariq Advocate.

JUDGMENT

WIQAR AHMAD, J. Instant petition has been filed by petitioner under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, with the following prayers:

“In view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court may graciously be pleased to:

1.Declare the constitution of the Inquiry Committee illegal, void, and without lawful authority, being in violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 2011.

2.Direct the Respondents to provide complete record, fact-finding report, and all material relied upon in the inquiry proceedings.

3.Direct the Respondents to afford the Petitioner a fair and meaningful opportunity of defense strictly in accordance with law.

4.Grant any other relief deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.Brief facts of the case (as stated in instant writ petition) are that petitioner is a citizen of W.P. No.2260-P/2026

Pakistan and a permanent resident of District Peshawar. He is a medical graduate (MBBS) who joined the Planning & Development Department, Government of Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa in 1992 as Provincial Technical Coordinator and is presently serving in BPS-20.

He has rendered more than three decades of service in different Government departments with an unblemished record. It is the case of petitioner that while serving as Director General in Law & Human Rights Department, he was served with a charge sheet alleging misuse of official position and failure to ensure proper maintenance of records and accounts of public assets, whereafter a statement of allegations was issued and an Inquiry Committee was constituted. The petitioner earlier challenged the composition of Inquiry Committee before this Court through writ petition No.578-P of 2026, whereupon one of its members was replaced through a fresh notification.

Thereafter, petitioner requested the inquiry authority to provide him a copy of the fact- finding report and relevant evidence forming the W.P. No.2260-P/2026

basis of the allegations so that he could prepare his defense; however, according to him, said request has not been decided and the inquiry proceedings are being carried forward without supplying the requisite material. It is further the grievance of petitioner that his subsequent objection regarding the legality of the constitution of Inquiry Committee was summarily disposed of with the observation that the application had been filed after conclusion of the inquiry. According to the petitioner, respondents are proceeding with the inquiry in a one-sided manner without affording him a fair opportunity of defense. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has invoked constitutional jurisdiction of this Court through instant petition.

3.Arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard and record gone through.

4.Perusal of record reveals that petitioner has raised a grievance against the proceedings of a departmental inquiry. The matter has not yet been finalized at the departmental end. The petitioner has been approaching this Court W.P. No.2260-P/2026

again and again on one pretext or another during the pendency of the departmental inquiry. His earlier writ petition bearing No.578-P 2026 has already been disposed of on 26.01.2026. This is the second writ petition filed by the same petitioner in respect of same departmental proceedings. It is a settled principle of constitutional law that a writ petition is maintainable only against a final order, once the matter has been finalized at the departmental end. Interim orders or measures cannot ordinarily be challenged before the High Court, nor can the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked on the basis of any alleged irregularity unless the matter suffers from some jurisdictional defect or such illegality which carries the potential of perpetuating injustice. In such circumstances this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant constitutional petition. Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while giving its judgment in the case of “Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, MNA and Leader of the Opposition, Bilawal House, Karachi Vs The State reported as 1999 SCMR W.P. No.2260-P/2026

1447, has held that a writ petition is not maintainable against interim orders unless the same suffers from a jurisdictional defect.

Relevant observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan is reproduced herein for ready reference:

“It is well settled that orders at the interlocutory stages should not be brought to the higher Courts to obtain fragmentary decisions, as it tends to harm the advancement of fair play and justice, curtailing remedies available under the law even reducing the right of appeal.”

Further reliance in this respect may also be placed on judgments reported as “2020 SCMR 260 & PLD 2009 Supreme Court 45”.

5.Instant writ petition has also arisen from measures taken during the pendency of the inquiry. The petitioner, being a civil servant, is expected to cooperate in the process of inquiry rather than to scuttle the same. Any ground that may become available to him during the course of inquiry can be agitated before the departmental appellate authority subsequently, or before the appropriate Tribunal, if the need arises. This Court cannot micro-manage the process of inquiry; therefore, the instant writ petition is found to be ill-conceived.

W.P. No.2260-P/2026

6.In light of what has been discussed above, instant constitutional petition was not found maintainable and same is accordingly dismissed.

Announced

--sd--

JUDGE

--sd--

JUDGE

(DB)Hon’ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Naeem Anwar J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Wiqar Ahmad J.

*Atif Zafar JSS*

W.P. No.2260-P/2026