Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 58‑P of 1968, decided on 19th November 1969.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, Peshawar, dated the 19th March 1968, in the case of Gulfraz, peon of the said High Court).

Constitution of Pakistan (1962),

Art. 58(3)‑Word "Order" Only those orders of High Court amenable to appeal in Supreme Court which are passed in exercise of its judicial function- Administrative order of High Court‑Not open to appeal under Art. 58(3).

The word "order" in Art. 58 of Constitution of Pakistan, 1962 is to be read ejusdem generis with judgment, decree or sentence, which are used in the same context clearly bringing out the intention of the provision that only those orders of the High Court are amenable to appeal in the Supreme Court which are passed in exercise of judicial functions and authority.

Muhammad Shafi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Nazar Khan, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 19th November 1969.

SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑

Petitioner Gulfraz, who was serving as an orderly in the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, was dismissed from service on a charge of misconduct for having refused to accompany a learned Judge of that Court on: tour to Karachi, except on certain pre‑conditions. An inquiry was held in the matter by the Additional Registrar of the Peshawar Registry, who found the ‑petitioner guilty on the basis of which the order of dismissal was passed by the Senior Judge of the Peshawar Bench.

A departmental appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court which changed the order of dismissal into one of removal from service. The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal from that order.

The petition must be dismissed on the short ground that the learned Senior Judge, Peshawar, had made the order of the petitioner's dismissal in his administrative capacity and not in the exercise of his judicial functions. The departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the Division Bench in the same administrative capacity.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the word "order" in Art. 58 of the abrogated Constitution of 1962 would cover every type of an order by the High Court, includ ing an administrative order. We do not agree. The word "order" in Art. 58 aforesaid is to be read ejusdem generis with judgment, decree or sentence, which are used in the same context clearly' bringing out the intention of the provision that only those orders of the High Court are amenable to appeal in this Court which are passed in exercise of its judicial functions and authority.

The petition is dismissed.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.