CHAIRMAN, ANTI-CORRUPTION ENQU IRIES and another vs ABDUL WAHEED
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Chairman, Anti-Corruption Enquiries, challenging a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had set aside a departmental order that withdrew the respondent's permanent absorption and appointment by transfer as a Constable in the Anti-Corruption Establishment. The core legal question was whether the initial appointment by transfer, made by the Director of the Anti-Corruption Establishment, was illegal or lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of approval from a Departmental Promotion Committee or higher authority. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any violation of statutory rules or that the Director lacked the competence to make the appointment under the relevant Service Rules of 1991. Finding that the appointment was within the Director's authority and that no substantial question of law of public importance was raised, the Court refused leave to appeal. The principle laid down is that departmental actions, such as the withdrawal of an appointment, cannot be sustained in the absence of a clear violation of statutory rules or proof of lack of jurisdiction by the appointing authority.
- Does the withdrawal of a permanent absorption order require proof of a violation of statutory rules?
- Is an appointment by transfer in BS-5 valid if made by the Director of the Anti-Corruption Establishment under the Service Rules of 1991?
- What constitutes a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 for the grant of leave to appeal?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 4-10-2006 passed by Sindh Service Tribunal allowing respondent's service appeal against departmental order dated 24-9-2004 whereby his permanent absorption/appointment by transfer as Constable in Anti-Corruption Establishment made by the competent authority vide order dated 10-4-2004 by petitioner No,2 i.e, Director Anti-Corruption Establishment Sindh was withdrawn.
2. We have heard learned Additional Advocate-General who vehemently agitated that the absorption/appointment of the respondent was not made through Departmental, Promotion Committee but he has not been able to point out any provision or rule of service governing the service of the respondent that the case of appointment of the respondent required approval/selection by the Departmental Promotion Committee. It is not disputed that the respondent was appointed by transfer from Police Department to Anti-Corruption Establishment in BS-5 which was within the competence of petitioner No,2 under the Service Rules of 1991. In the absence of any violation of statutory rules, or any exercise of authority beyond the power and jurisdiction of petitioner No,2, it is difficult to hold that petitioner No,2 acted illegally or without jurisdiction. Learned Law Officer has not been able to point out if the approval of petitioner No,1 was required for absorption of a member of' service in BS-5. Indeed the Tribunal has elaborately discussed the questions of fact agitated in the appeal and defended by the petitioners.
3. In our considered opinion no substantial question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution is made out for grant of leave which is accordingly refused and petition dismissed.