AZHAR MAJEED KHALID vs FORCE COMMANDER AIRPORT SECURITY FORCE
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal in limine. The appellant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Airport Security Force, was dismissed from service by the Chief Security Officer and challenged his dismissal before the Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order passed by an authorized officer of the Airport Security Force under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, in light of section 7-A(4) of the Airport Security Force Act, 1975. The Supreme Court held that subsection (4) of section 7-A completely bars the jurisdiction of any authority, tribunal, or court to vary, modify, alter, annul, set aside, revise, or review any order passed by an authorized officer of the Force under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The key principle laid down is that the insertion of subsection (4) to section 7-A of the Airport Security Force Act, 1975 ousted the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal over such service matters.
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order passed by an officer of the Airport Security Force authorized under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952?
- Does section 7-A(4) of the Airport Security Force Act, 1975 bar the jurisdiction of courts and tribunals to review orders passed by authorized officers of the Force?
- Section 7-A, Airport Security Force Act, 1975
- Section 7-A(4), Airport Security Force Act, 1975
- Section 7-F(1), Airport Security Force Act, 1975
- Section 7-F(2), Airport Security Force Act, 1975
- Pakistan Army Act, 1952
' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.--This appeal by leave of this Court is directed against the judgment dated 1-7-1998 of learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby Appeal No,477(K) of 1998 filed by the appellant was dismissed in limine.
2. The facts relevant for decision of this appeal are that the appellant on 6-7-1992 was appointed' as an Assistant Sub-Inspector by the Airport Security Force Authority. According to him, he had fallen ill, but this fact was not believed by the relevant authorities. He asserted that on 6-2-1998 he was produced before Chief Security Officer, who after hearing him for a few minutes, dismissed him from service. He has claimed that being a civil servant he could not be Court-martialled and dismissed as such.
3. Vide order dated 27-1-1999, leave to appeal was granted to examine the following:-- ' "We are inclined to grant leave to consider, as to whether the Tribunal has correctly applied the ratio decidendi of the judgment of this. Court in the case of Force Commander, Airport Security Force, Karachi and others v. Haji Muhammad Rashid and another (19961 SC MR 1614). Leave is accordingly granted."
4. Section 7-A was added in the Airport Security Force Act, 1975 on 7-8-1984. Again in the year 1994, a new subsection (4) was added to section 7-A, which is as follows:-- "(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, except the authorities specified in subsections (1) and (2) of section 7-F, no other Authority, Tribunal or Court shall have jurisdiction to-vary, modify, alter, annul, set aside, revise or review any order passed by any officer of the Force, authorized under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 (XXXIX of 1952)."
5. The fate of this case hinges upon the interpretation of aforesaid subsection (4).
6. In the reported case as Gul Muhammad v. The Force Commander and another (1999 SCM R 2935), a Full Bench of this Court, comprising three Judges having taken into consideration the ratio of two judgments of this Court; reported as Fasihuddin v. Khawar Latif Butt and others (1993 SCM R 1) and Force Commander, Airport Security Force, Karachi and others . v. Haji Muhammad Rashid and another (1996 SCM R 1614), held that under above subsection (4) notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, jurisdiction of any Authority, Tribunal or Court to deal with an order passed by any officer Airport Security Force, authorized under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, was completely barred. Also it was held that after insertion of sub-clause (4) the ratio of just above-referred two judgments was not applicable. In other words, the Tribunal or for that matter any authority, except as mentioned in section. 7(A), would have no jurisdiction to vary, modify, alter, annul, set aside, revise or review any order passed by an officer of the force authorised under the Pakistan Army Act;, 1952.
7. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the appellant was dismissed by the Chief Security Officer, Airport Security Force, who is an officer of force within the meaning of Army Act, 1952. It being so, the Tribunal rightly declined to entertain the appeal for want of jurisdiction. No interference is warranted.
8. In consequence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.