THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE HEADQUARTER, LAHORE And Others vs MUHAMMAD LATIF
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against a judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its writ jurisdiction to set aside an order of the Service Tribunal, and whether a civil servant could bypass the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 on the ground that the case did not involve a substantial question of law of public importance. The High Court had held that because the Service Tribunal's order was based on no evidence and violated mandatory police rules, and did not present a substantial question of law of public importance, writ jurisdiction was available. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the petition raised a substantial question of law of public importance regarding the scope of the High Court's powers under its writ jurisdiction to set aside orders of the Service Tribunal, and the interpretation of Article 212 of the Constitution.
- Whether the High Court has the jurisdiction under its writ jurisdiction to set aside or review orders passed by the Service Tribunal?
- Does the limitation of an appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution to substantial questions of law of public importance permit the High Court to exercise writ jurisdiction where no such question is deemed to exist?
- Can the High Court in its writ jurisdiction reverse a finding of fact rendered by the Service Tribunal?
- Article 212, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to Paras. 11 & 12 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the High Court which read as follows:- "11. The learned counsel for the respondents (petitioners herein) then came forth with another submission resting on Article 212 of the Constitution to urge that the Service Tribunal's order is appealable before the Supreme Court and as another adequate remedy is available to the petitioner (respondent herein), the writ petition is not maintainable.
12. This argument does not deserve any serious consideration, for under Article 212 en appeal lies to the Supreme Court only if the case involves a substantial question of law of public importance.
2. However, the instant case does not present any such question of law of public importance but nevertheless it being an order based on no evidence and also violative of the mandatory provision of the police rules, is liable to be struck down in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court."
3. It is submitted that the view of the learned Judge that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court would be available in the circumstances alluded by him above is untenable. Article 212 of the Constitution creates Service Tribunals conferring upon them exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the matters relating to the terms and conditions of persons in the service of Pakistan. Under Sub-Article (3) of Article 212 of the Constitution, a Civil servant has been given the right of appeal to the Supreme Court, provided the appeal involves a substantial question of law of public importance if no such question is involved the civil servant has no remedy and he is not an aggrieved person within the meaning of Article 212 of the Constitution.
4. It is further submitted that it is established law that disputed questions of fact cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction. The learned Service Tribunal had given a finding of fact that the charge-sheet and the statement of allegations were served on the respondent herein. This finding of fact could not be reversed in writ jurisdiction. The High Court could not hold an independent enquiry on a factual matter.
5. This petition raises a substantial question of law of public importance in relation to the powers of the High Court to set aside orders of the Service Tribunal in exercise of its writ jurisdiction anti involves the interpretation of Article 212 of the Constitution.
6. Leave is, accordingly, granted.
7. The interim order suspending the operation of the judgment of the High Court is confirmed.
8. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add documents, if any, and put up for hearing as early as possible.