Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition No. 26 of 1978, decided on 22nd January, 1980.
(On appeal from judgment and order of the Service Tribunal (Central), dated 20‑11‑1977 in Appeal No. 628(2) of 1974).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Arts. 212 & 270‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4‑ Jurisdiction‑‑Service Tribunal dismissing appeal of petitioner on grounds that its jurisdiction stood ousted by validation provisions contained in clause (4) of Art. 270 of Constitution‑‑‑ View taken by Tribunal as to ouster of its jurisdiction, held, was not correct‑‑Petition converted into appeal and appeal was accepted by setting aside order of Tribunal dismissing service appeal‑‑Tribunal was directed to dispose of appeal of petitioner on merits on all questions of law and facts.
Nemo for Petitioner.
Irahad Hassan Khan, Deputy Attorney‑General for Pakistan and S.M. Shahudul Haq instructed by Fazal‑i‑Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 11th November, 1979.
‑‑Petitioner Malik Iftikhar Ali was selected by the Federal Public Service Commission in 1949 as an officer of the General Administrative Reserve. He rose to the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Pakistan, and was serving on deputation with NIPA, Lahore, as Senior Instructor, when he was suspended from service under M.L.R. 58. on the 7th of December, 1969. Later he was served with a charge‑sheet, to which he duly replied, and also appeared before a Military Tribunal. Eventually he was dismissed from service on the 2nd of March, 1970.
He filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal, Government of Pakistan at Islamabad, but the same was dismissed on the 20th of November, 1977, on the majority view that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal.
No one appeared for the petitioner, but as on a similar question, of jurisdiction, we have already held in Civil Appeal No.K‑1 of 1978,1 that the Tribunal was in error in thinking that its jurisdiction stood ousted by the validation provisions contained in clause (4) of Article 270 of the Constitution, we would convert this petition into an appeal, and accepting it set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, dated the 20th of November, 1977, and direct that the petitioners appeal be disposed of by the Tribunal on merits on all questions of law and fact sought to be raised by the petitioner in the light of the observations made by us in the aforementioned appeal.
As the matter was still at the petition stage, there will be no order as to costs.
M.Y.H. Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer