GULFRAZ vs THE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF WEST PAKISTAN, Peshawars
The petitioner, an orderly in the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, challenged his removal from service, which followed an initial dismissal order for misconduct. The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against the High Court's decision, which had modified his dismissal to removal. The core legal question was whether an administrative order passed by a High Court Judge is appealable to the Supreme Court under Article 58 of the abrogated Constitution of 1962. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the order of dismissal was passed in an administrative capacity rather than a judicial one. The Court ruled that the term 'order' in Article 58 must be interpreted ejusdem generis with 'judgment, decree, or sentence.' Consequently, the Court established the principle that only orders passed by a High Court in the exercise of its judicial functions and authority are amenable to appeal before the Supreme Court, thereby excluding administrative orders from the scope of such appellate jurisdiction.
- Is an administrative order passed by a High Court Judge appealable to the Supreme Court under Article 58 of the 1962 Constitution?
- Does the term 'order' in Article 58 of the 1962 Constitution include administrative orders passed by the High Court?
- Are only judicial orders of the High Court amenable to appeal in the Supreme Court?
- Article 58, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-Petitioner Gulfraz, who was serving as an orderly in the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, was dismissed from service on a charge of misconduct for having refused to accompany a learned Judge of that Court on: tour to Karachi, except on certain pre- conditions. An inquiry was held in the matter by the Additional Registrar of the Peshawar Registry, who found the -petitioner guilty on the basis of which the order of dismissal was passed by the Senior Judge of the Peshawar Bench.
2. A departmental appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court which changed the order of dismissal into one of removal from service. The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal from that order.
3. The petition must be dismissed on the short ground that the learned Senior Judge, Peshawar, had made the order of the petitioner's dismissal in his administrative capacity and not in the exercise of his judicial functions. The departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the Division Bench in the same administrative capacity.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the word "order" in Art. 58 of the abrogated Constitution of 1962 would cover every type of an order by the High Court, includ--ing an administrative order. We do not agree. The word "order" in Art. 58 aforesaid is to be read ejusdem generis with judgment, decree or sentence, which are used in the same context clearly' bringing out the intention of the provision that only those orders of the High Court are amenable to appeal in this Court which are passed in exercise of its judicial functions and authority.
5. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL RAHEEM ZUBAIR BUTT vs AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT 2003 PLC (C.S.) 664