ZILLA COUNCIL through Administrator and another vs Mst. NASIRA NAHEED
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Zilla Council against a decision of the High Court. The core legal questions involve whether a constitutional writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before a departmental authority is available, whether a writ petition suffers from fatal laches when filed after a delay of over one year and nine months following a dismissal order, and whether the High Court misread the record regarding the provision of an opportunity of hearing and participation in an inquiry to the respondent. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these contentions in detail. The key principle highlighted relates to the procedural prerequisites of exhausting alternative remedies, the effect of unexplained delay and laches in invoking writ jurisdiction, and the necessity of correct factual appreciation regarding service of notice and inquiry proceedings in service matters.
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable before exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal before a departmental authority?
- Does a delay of over one year and nine months in filing a constitutional petition constitute laches sufficient to bar relief?
- Whether the High Court can be said to have misread the record regarding the service of notice and participation of an employee in a departmental inquiry?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. ' The contentions of the learned counsel are:--
(i) That alternative remedy of appeal etc., was available to the respondent before the Departmental Authority and before availing those remedies the writ petition was not maintainable;
(ii) The writ petition suffered from laches as the dismissal order of the respondent was passed on 30-1-1996, whereas the writ petition was filed on 21-10-1997 i.e, after more than one year and nine months and, therefore, on this count alone the High Court was not competent to entertain the writ petition;
(iii) That the learned Judge in the High Court has misread the record in respect of service of notice and participation in inquiry by the respondent as it was observed that she had not been afforded an opportunity to associate in the inquiry.
2. ' We grant leave to consider in detail the above contention.