DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN RANGERS, LAHORE vs RJ 3609 EX INSPECTOR
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the compulsory retirement of a member of the Pakistan Rangers. The respondent, an Ex-Inspector, was compulsorily retired by the Deputy Director-General, Pakistan Rangers Headquarters, Lahore. The Tribunal held that the retirement order was invalid because it was passed under Section 15(A-1) of the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959, rather than the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The petitioner contends that the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959, and its associated rules govern the service of the respondent, overriding the general civil service rules by virtue of Section 1(3) of the Ordinance. Furthermore, the petitioner highlights a conflict in the Tribunal's jurisprudence regarding whether the Pakistan Rangers (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1967, take precedence over the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to authoritatively resolve this conflict and determine the applicable disciplinary regime for Pakistan Rangers personnel.
- Does the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959, override the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, in matters of disciplinary action against Pakistan Rangers personnel?
- Are employees of the Pakistan Rangers governed by the Pakistan Rangers (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1967, rather than the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Section 15(A-1), Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959
- Section 1(3), Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959
- Section 15, Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959
- Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973
- Civil Servants Act, 1973
- Pakistan Rangers (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1967
ORDER
1. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J: -Respondent Muhammad Zubair, who was member of Desert Rangers, was retired compulsorily from his service by order dated 17-12-1991 passed by Deputy Director-General, Pakistan Rangers Headquarters, Lahore. He preferred a departmental appeal against his compulsory retirement and having failed to get redress from the departmental authority approached the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad through Service Appeal No. 112(L)/92.
2. The learned Service Tribunal without entering into the merits of the case allowed the appeal of respondent on the ground that the order of compulsory retirement of respondent from service was passed 'under section 15(A-1) of the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred as the Ordinance only) and not under the provisions of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, which applied to the respondent. The department has sought leave to appeal against the above order of Federal Service Tribunal and it is contended by the learned Deputy Attorney-General on behalf of the petitioner that the service of respondent was governed under the provisions of the Ordinance and the Rules made thereunder which override the provisions of Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the Rules made thereunder by virtue of section 1(3) of the Ordinance. It is also contended by the learned Deputy Attorney-General that the order of compulsory retirement of respondent from service having been passed strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 15 of the Ordinance it could not be interfered with by the Service Tribunal on the ground that it should have been passed in accordance with the provisions of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. There also appears to be a conflict in the opinion of Members of Federal Service Tribunal as in the case reported as Khursheid Ahmed v. Director- General, Pakistan Rangers (1984 PLC (C.S.) 12) the Tribunal took the view that employees of Pakistan Rangers Force are governed by the Pakistan Rangers (E & D) Rules, 1967 framed under the Ordinance, which has ascendancy over the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973.
3. The question raised in the above petition is of substantial importance and it also requires an authoritative pronouncement from this Court to resolve the conflict of opinion. Leave is, accordingly, granted to consider the above contentions.