PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD MUNIR
This petition by the Government challenges an order of the High Court dismissing its civil revision in a service matter. The respondent, a Senior Chargeman, was issued a notice of discharge from service by the Works Manager following an inquiry into allegations of illegal gratification. The respondent challenged the discharge through a civil suit, which was initially dismissed by the trial court, but his appeal was accepted by the Additional District Judge. The High Court subsequently dismissed the Government's civil revision. Both appellate forums held the notice of discharge to be invalid on the ground that it was not issued by the appointing authority, namely the Superintendent (Mechanical) Workshop, rather than on the plaintiff's original pleading regarding non-application of mind. The Government urged before the Supreme Court that the High Court erred in deciding the matter on an extraneous ground not raised in the pleadings. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the lower appellate forums and the High Court were justified in invalidating the discharge notice on a ground not put in issue.
- Whether a court or appellate forum is justified in deciding a case on a ground not raised in the pleadings or put in issue?
- Does a notice of discharge issued by an authority other than the appointing authority render the discharge invalid?
- Can the High Court sustain a judgment on an extraneous ground not taken up by the party in the trial court?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--This petition by the Government is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 16-4-1985 dismissing its 'Civil revision in a service matter.
2. Facts briefly, are that Muhammad Munir respondent was working as a Senior Chargeman in the Carriage and Wagon Workshop. Moghalpura Lahore. He was charged with having received illegal gratification and after the inquiry he was issued notice of discharge (from service) by the Works Manager. The said notice was challenged by the respondent through a civil suit in the civil Court at Lahore, which was dismissed. Muhammad Munir respondent then filed an appeal which was allowed by the Additional District Judge. The Government thereupon filed a Civil Revision before the High Court which did not succeed.
Hence he present petition by the Government.
3. It is urged by the petitioner's counsel that the only ground on which Muhammad Munir respondent had challenged his notice of discharge was that the Works Manager who had passed the discharge order had not applied his mind to the facts of the case and the report of the Inquiry Committee which (according to the respondent) had not held him guilty of the charge of accepting illegal gratification.
The learned Additional District Judge and the learned High Court, on the other hand, decided the matter on the ground that the notice of discharge of the respondent was not issued by the appointing authority, which in this case was the Superintendent (Mechanical) Workshop, and held the notice as invalid.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that theHigh Court has decided the matter on wholly extraneous ground which was never taken up by the respondent in his pleadings and that it was not justified in deciding the case on a ground which was not in issue in the trial Court.
Leave is, therefore, granted to consider whether the Additional District Judge and the High Court were justified in taking the view, in the circumstances of this case, that the discharge notice was not valid because it had not been is sued by the relevant authority. Stay already granted shall continue.