FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence Versus EX-CORPORAL TECHNICIAN ABDUL QADEER
ORDER
INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J.--- Through the instant Intra-Court Appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment dated 25.11.2025 ("Impugned Judgment") , passed by the learned Single Judge-in-Chambers, whereby Writ Petition No.3795/2025 filed by the respondent was allowed.
2. Brief facts, as gathered from the memo. of the appeal, are that the respondent joined Pakistan Air Force as an Airman on February, 2010 and served for 15 years, 05 months and 11 days till 31.07.2025, when he was dismissed from service and awarded 5 years' rigorous punishment vide Field Court Martial proceedings. Throughout, his service, the respondent performed his duties in a disciplined, responsible, and dignified manner. At no point during his career was any adverse material recorded against him with regard to his personal conduct, professional performance, or general discipline. During the relevant period, the respondent served under the command of Wing Commander Adnan Saeed, who was posted at Sargodha from July 2023 to August 2024. Owing to a personal grudge harbored by the Officer Commanding, the respondent was falsely implicated in a fabricated theft case. The respondent was not provided with any documents pertaining to the Field General Court Martial proceedings, including the final judgment. After his release from confinement on 31.07.2025, the petitioner submitted multiple applications to the JAG Branch, PAF, and DLS AHQs PAF, Peshawar, seeking provision of the relevant documents for filing proper appeal before the Court of Appeal, however, no response was received. Consequently, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3795/2025 before this Court, which was allowed vide the Impugned Judgment.
3. The learned AAG for the appellants inter alia contended that the respondent was an ex-Pakistan Air Force airman and the matter squarely arisen our of his service, thus he was barred from invoking the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; that it is settled principle of constitutional jurisprudence that where the constitution itself bars the jurisdiction of High Court such bar cannot be circumvented and that where a statute provides a specific forum and procedure for redressal of grievances, particularly in matters relating to military discipline and justice, recourse to constitutional jurisdiction is barred by doctrine of exclusive statutory remedy and that proceedings of the Board of Inquiry as well as those of Field General Court Martial are expressly declared to be privileged and confidential documents under Rule 191(19) and proviso to Rule 137 of the PAF Act Rules.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the record.
5. While deciding the question of maintainability of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge rightly relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Federation of Pakistan v. Abdul Basit (2012 SCMR 1229) and Federation of Pakistan v. Lt. Munir Ahmed Gill (2014 SCMR 1530) , in which it has been held that if any action of the army authorities regarding a serving officer of the armed forces or any other person subject to the Act is established to be either mala fide , quorum non-judice or without jurisdiction then the same can be assailed through a writ petition by the aggrieved person. In the present case, Field General Court Martial proceedings were conducted against the petitioner, an Airman by the Pakistan Air Force for allegedly committing offence of theft. The petitioner has claimed that he was denied the documents of the proceedings of the Field General Court Martial as well as the final judgment, which conduct of the appellants appears to be prima facie mala fide.
6. Argument of the learned AAG for the appellants that proceedings of the Board of Inquiry as well as those of Field General Court Martial are expressly declared to be privileged and confidential documents under Rule 191(19) and proviso to Rule 137 of the PAF Act Rules. Relying on these rules, the appellants cannot deny to an accused to provide documents of the proceedings initiated against him and thereafter the decision. The copies of the proceedings of trial and the final judgment must be provided to the accused to enable him to effectively defend himself. Access to the complete record of the proceedings ensures that the accused is fully aware of evidence, arguments and legal reasoning used against him. Without such information, the accused would be placed at a serious disadvantage, as he would be unable to challenge inconsistencies, procedural irregularities or misinterpretations of facts and law. Moreover, furnishing the accused with the documents pertaining to the trial proceedings and the final judgment is essential to uphold the right of defence and the concept of a fair trial, which is a constitutionally guaranteed right enshrined in Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
7. In view of the above discussion, the Impugned Judgment has been passed in accordance with law. The instant I.C.A bears no merits, therefore, the same stands dismissed in limine.
UN/33/Isl Appeal dismissed.