1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Ch. A.RAHMAN KHAN (MEMBER).‑‑Mr. M. Zafar Sohail, the appellant by way of this appeal has challenged the order of Secretary‑General Defence regarding dispensation of his services contained in Letter No.l 18/FCs/83, dated 12‑2‑1984. The appellant was serving as Assistant Security Officer in the Airports Security Force since 7‑8‑1976. His services were dispensed with by the competent authority in exercise of the powers under the provisions of paragraph 6 read with paragraph 11 of M.L.R.

52. The appellant preferred a review petition dated 3‑3‑1984 against the said order, but without waiting for the statutory period of 90 days preferred an appeal before the Tribunal on 19‑6‑1984. However, this appeal has since matured and we accept the appeal as competent.

2. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this case he was not given any show‑cause notice before passing the impugned order dated 12‑2‑1984. It was also submitted that the respondent‑department has not so far filed any parawise comments in reply to his appeal. In addition, it was urged that the Honourable Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal in the case of Appeal No.13(K)/83, in which the Tribunal had assumed the jurisdiction to hear the appeals of those whose services were dispensed with under M. L. R. 52: It was submitted that this case is likely to come up for hearing in the near future. In view of this it was urged that the hearing in the case of this appeal may be adjourned till the judgment in that case is announced.

3. It was strongly contended by the representative of the respondent department that although parawise comments were not filed in this case yet the necessary documents relating to the question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear this appeal have since been filed. It was also urged that the appellant was served with the show‑cause notice/charge‑sheet to which he failed to submit a reply.

4. It was, argued that action in this case was taken under M. L. R. 52 which bars the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in such cases and, therefore, the appeal may be dismissed as incompetent.

5. We have gone through the record presented to us and we find that the show‑cause notice/charge‑sheet was served on the appellant which remained unreplied by him. The services of the appellant were dispensed with under para. 6 read with para 11 of M. L. R..52. Since the order was passed under the M. L. R. we have no jurisdiction to interfere in view of the bar placed by clauses 5 and 6 of Article 15 of the Chief Martial Law Administrator Order No.l of 1981, which was interpreted by the Chief Matial Law Administrator by order dated 31‑7‑1984. It was made clear that an order passed under any Martial Law Regulation cannot be challenged before the Service Tribunal.

6. Besides, all actions of the Chief Martial Law Administrator throughout' his tenure of office, i.e. July, 1977 to March, 1985 have been afforded constitutional protection under subsection (2) of Article 270(A)‑‑Validation of President's Order, etc, Constitution of Pakistan 1973. We hold that the present appeal falls in the same category.

7. It was also confirmed that presently there is no information with the Tribunal regarding the firm date of hearing of Appeal No.13(K)/83 by the Honourable Supreme Court.

8. The result is that this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction with no order as to costs. M.Y.H./412/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.