SCMR 1986

1986 PLP 1434 (SCMR)

Malik IFTIKHAR ALI — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary to Government of Pakistan Establishment Division — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition No. 26 of 1978, decided on 22nd January, 1980.
Honorable Judges
Anwarul Haq, C.J., Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1986 PLP 1434 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Anwarul Haq, C.J., Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
Parties Malik IFTIKHAR ALI — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary to Government of Pakistan Establishment Division — Respondent
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1434 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1434 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Anwarul Haq, C.J., Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1434 (SCMR) (Malik IFTIKHAR ALI — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary to Government of Pakistan Establishment Division — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • 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.
  • Irahad Hassan Khan, Deputy Attorney‑General for Pakistan and S.M. Shahudul Haq instructed by Fazal‑i‑Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from judgment and order of the Service Tribunal (Central), dated 20-11-1977 in Appeal No. 628(2) of 1974).

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.

Judgment & Decree

ANWARUL HAQ, C.J.‑‑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.