TAHIR JAMIL, BUTT vs Mian JEHANGIR PERVEZ and another
The petitioner, a Civil Judge facing departmental inquiry proceedings, challenged an order of the Inquiry Officer who had declined to allow the cross-examination of certain witnesses and proceeded against the petitioner for deliberate absence. The petitioner filed a Constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed on the grounds that the High Court lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court correctly declined jurisdiction. The Court held that the matter pertained to the terms and conditions of service, thereby attracting the bar of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the appropriate forum for such grievances is the Service Tribunal, where all points regarding the inquiry proceedings could be agitated. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, upholding the principle that the High Court cannot interfere in departmental inquiry matters where an alternative remedy exists before the Service Tribunal.
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to interfere in departmental inquiry proceedings involving a civil servant?
- Is a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant barred from High Court jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can an Inquiry Officer proceed against a civil servant under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules for deliberate absence?
- Article 212, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Rule 7, Efficiency and Discipline Rules
ORDER
SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment and order, dated 13-11-1998, whereby a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed a Constitution Petition filed by the petitioner assailing the order of the Inquiry Officer, who declined to allow the petitioner to cross- examine two witnesses.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is a Civil Judge and is facing a departmental inquiry being conducted against him by the District and Sessions Judge, Sialkot. The inquiry was in progress against the petitioner and on 21, 22 and 23-5-1997, interim orders were passed by the Inquiry Officer. These orders reveal that the petitioner at one stage refused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. Assurance was given to the petitioner that after production of the record, if it was necessary, the prosecution witnesses would be recalled for cross-examination. On 23- 51997 the petitioner did not appear and it came to the notice of the Inquiry Officer that he was working in Court at Rawalpindi. On 19-6-1997, the petitioner again did not appear and sought adjournment on account of pain in his back and in support thereof he also produced some prescriptions through the Process Server. The Inquiry Officer was also informed that the petitioner on account of his transfer from Rawalpindi to Ian tock was in a hurry, and therefore, could not appear before the Inquiry Officer. The District and Sessions Judge, the Inquiry Officer, found these excuses as lame because the petitioner on the relc yam date was working in his Court. In this view of the matter, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the absence of the petitioner was deliberate and, thus, he decided to proceed against the petitioner under rule 7 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The petitioner then filed an application seeking review of the orders passed by the Inquiry Officer on 22 and 23-5-1997 for proceeding against the petitioner under sub-rule (4) of rule 7 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The learned Inquiry Officer rejected the review application on the ground that he had no power to review and that the petitioner was negligent and had deliberately absented himself.
3. Aggrieved by the said orders, dated 19-6-1997 passed by the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner assailed the same through a Constitutional petition, which was dismissed vide order impugned.
4. We have heard the learned counsel at length and we are of the view that it was rightly held by the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court that it was beyond his jurisdiction to interfere in the matter on account of bar of jurisdiction contained in Article 212 of the Constitution because the matter related to the enforcement of the terms and conditions of service. The learned Judge also rightly opined that an appeal was maintainable before .the Subordinate Judiciary Services Tribunal, and therefore, these points could be urged in appeal. The learned Judge also correctly placed reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No,1963 of 1992 whereby the High Court had declined to interfere with the imam order passed by the Inquiry Officer in inquiry proceedings.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.