DIRECTORGENERAL, PAKISTAN RANGERS, LAHORE vs RJ3609 EXINSPECTOR
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 core legal question is whether the service conditions and disciplinary proceedings of Pakistan Rangers personnel are governed by the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959, and its associated rules, or by the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The petitioner contends that the Ordinance and its rules override the general civil service laws by virtue of section 1(3) of the Ordinance, and that the compulsory retirement was validly executed under section 15 of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court notes a conflict in the Federal Service Tribunal's own jurisprudence regarding the applicability of the Pakistan Rangers (E&D) Rules, 1967, versus the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. Finding the issue to be of substantial public importance requiring an authoritative pronouncement, the Court granted leave to appeal to resolve the conflict of opinion regarding the governing legal framework for disciplinary actions against Pakistan Rangers personnel.
- Are employees of the Pakistan Rangers governed by the Pakistan Rangers (E&D) Rules, 1967, or the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Does the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959, override the provisions of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, in matters of disciplinary proceedings?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal interfere with a compulsory retirement order passed under the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959, on the basis that it failed to follow the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Section 15(A-1), Pakistan Rangers Ordinance 1959
- Section 15, Pakistan Rangers Ordinance 1959
- Section 1(3), Pakistan Rangers Ordinance 1959
- Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973
- Civil Servants Act 1973
- Pakistan Rangers (E&D) 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 Servents (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 Khurshid 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 ascendency 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.