MUHAMMAD ALI vs SECRETARY, MINISTY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, ISLAMABAD And Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal as premature due to the absence of a final order. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of a service appeal before the Tribunal when departmental disciplinary proceedings under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 remain pending and no final adverse order has been passed. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's view was unexceptionable, ruling that an appeal filed against ongoing or inconclusive departmental proceedings without a final order is not maintainable. The key principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under the Service Tribunals Act where departmental proceedings are still pending and no final order has been issued against the civil servant.
- Is an appeal before the Service Tribunal maintainable against pending disciplinary proceedings where no final order has been passed?
- Can a civil servant challenge ongoing departmental proceedings under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 before the Service Tribunal prematurely?
- Rule 5, Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973
ORDER
1. SAJJAD ALI SHAH. C.J.---Through this petition ;ea\e is sought to file 'appeal against the judgment dated 29-11-1995 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable as having been filed prematurely in the absence of a final order. It appears that the petitioner is being proceeded against under Rule 5 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 on certain allegations and the proceedings in respect of which have not been concluded. In the meantime question of his transfer abroad came up on a couple of occasions but the same has been deferred seemingly for the reason that the disciplinary proceedings against him are still pending. In the circumstance, we do not find any flaw or legal infirmity in the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal and in consequence refuse leave and dismiss the petition.