Malik IFTIKHAR ALI vs PAKISTAN Through Secretary To Government Of Pakistan Establishment Division
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order of the Service Tribunal, Government of Pakistan, which dismissed the civil servant's appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction under the validation provisions of Article 270(4) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The petitioner had been suspended under M.L.R. 58 in 1969 and subsequently dismissed from service in 1970.
The core legal question was whether the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal to entertain an appeal against a dismissal order was ousted by Article 270(4) of the Constitution.
Following its precedent set in Civil Appeal No. K-1 of 1978, the Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal erred in holding that its jurisdiction was ousted by Article 270(4). Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for decision on the merits regarding all questions of law and fact.
- Whether the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal is ousted by the validation provisions of Article 270(4) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Article 270(4), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, C.J.--Petitioner Malik Iftikhar Ali was selected by the Federal Public Service Commission in 1949 as an officer of the General Administrative Reserve. He rose to the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Pakistan, and was serving on deputation with NIPA, Lahore, as Senior Instructor, when he was suspended from service under M.L.R.
58. On the 7th of December, 1969. Later he was served with a charge-sheet, to which he duly replied, and also appeared before a Military Tribunal. Eventually he was dismissed from service on the 2nd of March, 1970.
2. He filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal, Government of Pakistan at Islamabad, but the same was dismissed on the 20th of November, 1977, on the majority view that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal.
3. No one appeared for the petitioner, but as on a similar question, of jurisdiction, we have already held in Civil Appeal No.K-1 of 1978,1 that the Tribunal was in error in thinking that its jurisdiction stood ousted by the validation provisions contained in clause (4) of Article 270 of the Constitution, we would convert this petition into an appeal, and accepting it set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, dated the 20th of November, 1977, and direct that the petitioners appeal be disposed of by the Tribunal on merits on all questions of law and fact sought to be raised by the petitioner in the light of the observations made by us in the aforementioned appeal.
4. As the matter was still at the petition stage, there will be no order as to costs.