Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. l l l l of 1979, decided on 3rd June, 1981.

(In the matter of abatement).

----No. 23, para. 3, read with Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 15(2) read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑Com pulsory retirement‑Challenge to validity of ‑No challenge to any order passed by Martial Law Administrator being entertainable in view of cl. (2) of Art. 15 of Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, any submission with regard to validity of order of compulsory retirement, held, beyond pale of challenge.‑[Civil services].

Sh. Ghias Muhammad and Ch. Hamiduddin, Senior Advocates and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 3rd June, 1981.

Leave to appeal was granted to examine the interpretation of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and Martial Law Order No. 23, clause (2). An inquiry was hold against the appellant under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, and he was compulsorily retired from service by order dated 30th of October 1976. The appellant challenged this order before the Punjab Service Tribunal through an appeal which he later withdrew under clause 3(2) of Martial Law Order No. 23 as be elected to prefer a review petition under that Order; and he did file such an application which was rejected by the Martial Law Administrator, Zone A, by order dated 16th of January, 1978. The appellant challenged this order before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. An objection was taken to its maintainability on the ground that such an order was not assailable as protection was given to it by Martial Law Order No. 10 and clause (4) of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977. It was further urged that as the appellant had withdrawn his earlier appeal involving the same cause of action, he was precluded from reagitating it again before the Tribunal.

In reply, besides other submissions, it was urged that 'an appeal was competent under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, as the Martial Law Administrator, who being a competent authority, had passed the order in his capacity as a departmental authority and, therefore, the legality of the order of retirement was assailable in that forum. Under the present dispensation, namely, the Provisional Constitution Order of 1981, an challenge to an order passed by the Martial Law Administrator is not enter tainable in view of clause (2) of Article 15. Therefore, any submission in regard to the validity of the order of compulsory retirement is beyond the pale of challenge.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as not being entertainable by this Court.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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