Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: EJAZ RAHIM VS Respondent: FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
1999 P L C (C
1999 P L C (C.S.) 38
[Lahore High Court]
Before Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
EJAZ RAHIM
versus
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 2 others
Writ Petition No. 13425 of 1998, decided on 20th July, 1998.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑‑Arts. 199 & 212‑‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4‑‑‑Civil service‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Bar of High Court jurisdiction under An. 212 of the Constitution‑‑‑Dispute raised by petitioner/civil servant in Constitutional petition was essentially relatable to terms and conditions of service for which Service Tribunal was appropriate forum even in respect of interlocutory orders‑‑‑Petitioner/civil servant approached High Court by filing Constitutional petition without waiting for a reasonable time for decision on his representation made by him before Competent Authority‑‑‑Bar of Art. 212 of Constitution of Pakistan 1973 as squarely attracted to disciplinary matter‑‑‑No jurisdictional defect was pointed out as to lack of competence in Departmental Authorities to take proceedings against petitioner/civil servant‑‑‑Questions of law and facts could be taken before Service Tribunal if an order was passed by Departmental Authority‑‑‑Petitioner/civil servant having failed to point out that matter in dispute did not fall within jurisdiction of Federal Service Tribunal, Constitutional petition filed by petitioner/civil servant, was dismissed as not maintainable.
Muhammad Yamin v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1980 SC 22 and I. A. Sherwani v. Federation of Pakistan 1991 SCMR 1041 ref.
Dr. A. Basit for Petitioner.
Kh. Saeed‑uz‑Zafar, Dy. Attorney‑General for Respondents.
ORDER
The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has prayed inter alia for a declaration that the petitioner has been condemned unheard by the authority while exercising powers under Rule 6(a) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 and for the Authorised Officer is required by law to wait the decision on the representation moved by the petitioner and arrange for adequate opportunity of hearing of the petitioner before the authority and also prayed for direction inter alia that the Authorised Officer be restrained from proceeding further on the basis of impugned show‑cause notice until the decision of the representation and direction to the Establishment Secretary to transmit the representation to the authority with a direction to the Federation to ensure that the finding of guilt recorded by the authority against the petitioner was not effectuated until and unless the petitioner has had an opportunity of hearing before the
authority. The petition came up for limine hearing on 6th of July, 1998 when copy of the petition was made over to the learned Deputy Attorney‑General to obtain instructions and assist the Court. The order has been complied.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been condemned unheard by the authority, therefore, the order is illegal. It is added that although tote petitioner has made a representation but the same is not being disposed of, therefore, a direction may be issued to the authority.
3. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Attorney‑General argued that the representation was sent through post on 2nd of July, 1998 while the writ petition was filed on 4th of July, 1998 with the result that the authority was not given any time for decision of the representation. It was added that the representation shall be decided in accordance with law and rules in the light of Appeal Rules, 1977.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The dispute is essentially relatable to the terms and conditions of service for which the Service Tribunal is the appropriate remedy even in respect of interlocutory orders. Moreover, the petitioner rushed to this Court by filing the present writ petition without waiting for a reasonable time for decision on his representation. The bar of Article 212 of the Constitution is squarely attracted to a disciplinary matter. No jurisdictional defect was pointed out as to the lack of competence in the departmental authorities to take the impugned proceedings. All questions of law and facts can be taken before the Service Tribunal if an order is passed by a departmental authority. See the cases of Muhammad Yamin v. Government Pakistan (PLD 1980 SC 22) and I.A. Sherwani v. Federation of Pakistan (1991 SCMR 1041). The leaned counsel failed to point out that the matter did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal.
5. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed in limine. The respondents are, however, directed to deal with the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and the rules.
H.B.T./I‑60/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.