Mst. Kashmala Bibi Vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 04 others

I

JIJDGMENT SHEET

PESIIAWAR HGIH COURT. BAI\NU BENCII

(Iudicial DePartnen|

W.P.No.372-Bl2025.

Mst. Kashmala Bibi and 07 others

Versus

Govt. of K.P.K and 04 others

JUDGMENT

Dateofhearing: WND.

For petitioners: Mr. Noor Muhammad Khattak, Advocate, through video link from Peshawar.

For respondents: IvIr. Muhammad Asghar Khan Ahmadzai, Addl: Asstt: A.G'

J.- This consolidated judgment disposes of W'P' No.372-812025, filed by petitioners Mst. Kashmala Bibi, Mst. Mehreen Gul, Mst.

Shazia, Mst. Zainab, Mst. Zubaida, Mst' Gul Anar Zada" Mst. Razmeen Bibi and Mst. Sumera, and connected W.P.

No.537-Bl2025, filed by petitioner Mst. Ruthsana Kausar, as both petitions arise out of the same controversy and rest upon identical facts and questions of law.

2.The petitioners were initially appointed as Lady Health Workers (LHWs) in District Norttr Waziristan on a contract basis. Subsequently, vide Notification No. DHS/ FATA/3357-9012013, dated 27.02.2013, their services were regularized with effect from 01.07.2012, in pursuance of the approval of the Prime Minister communicated through O'M'

No. F.5(3)2012-HWLHWs, datad 21.01.2013, and in compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, dated 01.01.2013, passed in Criminal Petition No.l5/2012. The grievance of the petitioners stems from stoppage of their salaries on allegations of illegal appointnents. They initially preferred departmental appeals followed by service appeals before the Service Tribunal' However, upon release of their salaries during pendency of appeals, they withdrew the same. Subsequently, the Directorate General Health Services, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa' \y vide letter No.2396-98, darqd 24.03.2025, forwarded recommendations of a fact-finding inquiry report (constituted through Office Order, No.l15-18/Lit dated 16.01.2025) to the District Health Officer, North Waziristan' The relevant recommendations were:

i. All appointments made during the tenure of Dr. Israr and Dr. Hamid Ullah be declared null and void ab initio, and the loss to the Govemment exchequer be recovered from illegal appointees and responsible offrcials' ii. The DHO North Waziristan be directed to remove all illegal appointees, including those mentioned in W.P. No.425-812021, by issuing show-cause notices under Rule 5(l)(a) read with Rule 7 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Efficiency & Disciplinary Rules, 201I'

In pursuance thereof, show-cause notices, daf'ad 25.04'2025 were issued to the petitioners. They responded that they had been appointed long back in 2007 and later regularized under

the approval of the Prime Minister and orders of the Supreme Court; therefore, they had no nexus with the impugned inquiry. Instead of awaiting the outcome of proceedings, they rushed to this Court by filing the instant writ petitions.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that issuance of show-cause notices is without lawful authority as their appointments stood regularized pursuant to Supreme Court's orders; hence, no disciplinary proceedings could be initiarcd against them. Conversely, leamed Addl: A.G.

supported the impugrred notices and contended that no adverse order has yet been passed; only opportunity to explain is being afforded. He firther submitted that disputed questions of fact and legality of appointnents require determination by the competent authority in terms of prescribed rules, and not through constitutional jurisdiction.

4.Heard.Recordperused'

5.The scope of interference under Article 199 of the Constitution against a mere show-cause notice is well-settled.

The superior Courts have consistently held that unless a notice is ex-facie without jurisdiction, the aggriwed party must submit its reply and avail statutory rcmedies. Premature interference by this Court would stifle the process of inquiry and deprive the competent authority of lawful exercise of jurisdiction, ln Commissiorur Inland Revenuc and others v.

Jahangir Khan Tareen and others (2022 SCMR 92), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that issuance of a show-cause notice does not pre-empt or necessarily entail an adverse order against the notices. It was further observed that the cornmon tendency of challenging show-cause notices in writ jurisdiction, instead of submitting replies before the competent authority, is deprecated. The Court emphasized that abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice must be the normal rule, and the parties should be relegated to statutory proceedings before the 7 concemed forums.

Similarly, in Riaz Hussain v. Province of Puniab and others (2021 PLC (C.S') l), the Lahore High Court (Multan Bench), relying on earlier precedents incbding Abdul Wahab Khan v. Governrnent of the Punjab (PLD 1989 SC 508), Muhammad Javed v. EDO (E&rcation) Sialkot (PLJ 2002 Lahore 1393), and Syed Khalid Mehmood Bulhari v' G'M' (HRO) PTCL (2OI2PLC (C.S.) 1366), categorically held that intermediate steps in disciplinary proceedings, such as issuance of show-cause notices, cannot be assailed through constitutional petitions. Such writs are not maintainable at that premature stage.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khalid Mahmood Ch' and others v. Government of the Pmiab (2002 SCMR 805) also declared that where only show-cause notices were issued, without any final adverse order having been passed,

constitutional petitions challenging such notices were premature and liable to be dismissed. The Court underscored that the competent authority must first consider the replies of the petitioners, and only thereafter, if necessary, initiate further proceedings under law.

6.In the present case as well, the petitioners have only been confronted with show-cause notices in pursuance of a fact-finding inquiry. No final adverse order affecting their terms of service has yet been passed. The petitioners have a full opportunity to submit their defense before the competent w authority, which is under a legal obligation to consider their pleas, including their regularization under the Prime Minister's directive and the Supreme Court's judgment. It is also noteworthy that the petitioners had earlier availed deparfinental and sef,vice tribunal remedies but chose to withdraw the same. Now, by filing these writ petitions, they are again seeking to bypass the statutory framework, which is lm The plea that the petitioners' appointments were regularized under the Supreme Court's directions is a defense available to them before the competent authority, but cannot be adjudicated in constitutional proceedings at a stage when only show-cause notices are issued.

7.For the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are misconceived, premature and not maintainable. The same are accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners shall be at

liberty to submit their replies to the impugned show-cause notices and to raise all legal and factual pleas before the competent authority, which shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law, after affording them due opportunity of

hearing.

Announced.

Dt:24.9.2025.

U.

Imran/*

r*o*'o*fL Hon'ble L!r.

u*,oi oii r,,,i'i1ffftff;e errui