Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ADEEL YOUSUF VS Respondent: THE DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER SAHIWAL
2002 P L C (C
2002 P L C (C.S.) 424
[Lahore High Court]
Before Muhammad Farrukh Khan, J
ADEEL YOUSUF and others
versus
THE DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER SAHIWAL
Writ Petitions Nos. 7335 and 7336 of 2001 decided on 28th August, 2001.
Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Rr. 4 & 6‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 212(3)‑‑ Constitutional petition‑ ‑‑Removal from service‑‑‑Civil servants who were removed from service after issuing show‑cause notice had challenged the order directly in Constitutional petition before High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servants had efficacious remedy by way of filing an appeal before Appellate Authority and in case they were not satisfied with the decision of Appellate Authority, could approach the Service Tribunal and judgment of Tribunal could also be challenged before the Supreme Court after obtaining leave as laid down in Art.212(3) of Constitution of Pakistan (1973), but such course had not been adopted by the civil servant‑‑‑High Court having no jurisdiction to interfere in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants‑‑‑Constitutional petition was not maintainable, which was dismissed, in circumstances.
Rai Ahmad Ali v. Province of Punjab and others 1999 SCMR 1832; Sajjad Ahmad paved Bhatti v. The Secretary, Establishment Division and 11 others 1999 SCMR 2186; Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Health Department v. Dr., S. Muhammad Zafar Bukhari PLD 1997 SC 351; Manzoor Hussain and others v. Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Layyah and others 1997 PLC (C.S.) 965: Shah Abdur Razzaq Gillani v. Secretary, Government of N.‑W.F.P., Agriculture, Forests and Cooperative Department, Peshawar and 2 others 1988 PLC (C.S.I 361 and Amjad Latif and others v. C.B.R. and others 1996 CLC 1422 ref.
Ch. Muhammad Siddique Safdar for Petitioner.
ORDER
The petitioner namely Adeel Yousuf, Muhammad Afzal, Allah Bakhsh, Mehboob Ahmad, Aamir Farooqo and Muhammad Aamir. Malik through Writ Petition No.7335 of 2001, and the petitioners namely Akbar Ali Zaidi, Muhammad Ejaz, Muhammad Tariq Mehmood, Muhammad Imran and Muhammad Hanif through Writ Petition No.7336 of 200: have challenged the order, dated 5‑7‑2001, whereby they were terminated from the service. As the facts and law points involved in both the writ petitions are of the similar nature, therefore, both these writ petitions are being disposed of through this single order.
2. The necessary facts leading to the present writ petitions are that the petitioners were appointed as Dispenser, C.D.C. Supervisors etc., in lieu of the other vacancies, on temporary basis in the year 1995. It was made clear to the petitioners through Clause‑I of the appointment order/letter that the appointment of the service would be purely on temporary basis and would be governed by the Punjab Health Department District Ministerial Service Rules, 1964 and the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1974. Allegedly the petitioners had been working as Sanitary Inspectors but were being paid the salary fixed for Dispenser.
3. The petitioners were issued show‑cause notices under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1999, by the District Health Officer, Sahiwal, on a printed form. The reasons given therein are almost identical. After receipt of the show‑cause notice, the petitioners submitted their replies. All the petitioners in the abovementioned two writ petitions were, thereafter, removed from service by the order passed by the District Health Officer, Sahiwal, under rule 6, sub‑rule (4) of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1999, as major penalty of removal from service was imposed upon them.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have challenged their termination from service before this Court through the above, referred writ petitions. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners has admitted that the petitioners were civil servants and the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1999, were applicable to them.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the documents/Annexure available on the file. It has been admitted that the petitioners are civil servants, therefore, it cannot he denied that the petitioners have an efficacious remedy by way of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority as provided under the law. In case the petitioners are not satisfied with the decision of the Appellate Authority they still have another remedy to approach the Punjab Service Tribunal. Admittedly the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal can also be challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan after obtaining leave, as laid down under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Even otherwise under the said Article this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter relating to the. terms and conditions of a civil servant. Reliance is placed on the case Rai Ahmad Ali v. Province of Punjab, and others (1999 SCMR 1832), Sajjad Ahmad Javed Bhatti v. The Secretary, Establishment Division and 11 others (1999 SCMR 2186) and Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Ilealth Department v. Dr. S. Muhammad Zafar Bukhari (PLD 1997 SC 351).
6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the case Manzoor Hussain and others v. Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Layyah and others (1997 PLC (C.S.) 965), which is not applicable and deals with the maxim audi alteram partem, Shah Abdur Razzaq Gillani v. Secretary, Government of N.‑W.F.P., Agriculture, Forests and Cooperative Department, Peshawar and 2 others (1988 PLC (C.S. 361) (wherein it is held that the Service Tribunal is fully competent to adjudicate upon the matters relating to the seniority, compulsory retirement, dismissal, removal, the A.C.Rs. etc., but the power to appoint a particular person on a particular post does not vest.in it) and Amjad Latif and others v. C.B.R. and others (1996 CLC 1422), which are not applicable in the circumstances of the case.
7. In view of the above discussion, both these writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No.7335 and 7336 of 2001 being misconceived stand dismissed in limine.
H.B.T./A‑304/L Petitions dismissed.