SAJID HUSSAIN and others vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE and otherss
This matter arises from civil petitions seeking leave to appeal against the findings of the Service Tribunal regarding disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners. The core legal question is whether factual controversies can be resolved under the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and whether the petitioners were afforded adequate opportunity to defend themselves during departmental proceedings. The Supreme Court held that it is not permissible to resolve factual controversies in the jurisdiction envisaged by Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and that no illegality existed in the disciplinary proceedings where the petitioners had ample opportunity to defend their jobs. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of any substantial question of law of great public importance to justify granting leave. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
- Can factual controversies be resolved in the jurisdiction envisaged by Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
- What justifies the grant of leave to appeal from a judgment of the Service Tribunal?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with regular disciplinary proceedings where the petitioner had ample opportunity to defend their job?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
ORDER
' The learned Advocate Supreme Court submits that the petitioners had not been sent to the Court premises for maintenance of law and order and had gone there merely to arrest some accused person who had moved a petition for his release on pre-arrest bail. This submission is being negated by the record according to which the petitioners had been sent to the Court premises for "Urdu".
2. Be that as it may, it is not permissible for us to resolve factual controversies in this jurisdiction envisaged by Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. It had been found by the learned Service Tribunal that the petitioners had ample opportunity to defend their jobs before the competent forum seized of the matter during the course of disciplinary proceedings and no illegality existed vis-a-vis the said proceedings. The learned counsel has not been able to show the existence of any substantial question of law of great public importance which could justify grant of leave to the petitioners to file appeals.
3. Civil Petitions Nos.2738-L of 2004 to 2745-L of 2004 are therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.