1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CH AIRMAN).‑Bashir Ahmad Farooqi, Senior Special Magistrate WAPDA, Islamabad Region, Rawalpindi, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Additional Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat Lahore, as respondent. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the appeal be accepted and Impugned notification, dated 11th July, 1983 be set aside and adverse remarks contained therein be expunged. 3. Brief facts of the case are that one accused Lal Khan was tried by the Special Military Court No. 11, under M. L. R.‑8. The Court comprised of Lt.‑Col., Ehsanullah Major Nazir Suleri, Punjab Regiment and Bashir Ahmad Farooqi. The said trial resulted into acquittal of Lal Khan accused. The record of the proceedings was scrutinized by the M. L. A. H. Q. R. and it was found by the said authority that the case was proved against the accused and he should have been convicted. In view of this finding by the M. L. A. the Court was reassembled on 28th December, 1980 but decided to adhere to its previous findings. However, the said proceedings were confirmed by the M. L. A. in order to save time and effort on retrial of the case. Despite the said action by the M. I,. A., a direction was given by him that following entry be placed on the dossier of the appellant :‑ "As reported by H. Q. M. L. A. Zone `A' (Punjab), Lahore, the Special Military Court No. 11 tried Lai Khan son of Gul Khan under M. L. A.‑8. towards the end of 1980, Mr. Bashir Ahmad Farooqi, M. I. C. and other Members of the said Court were careless and casual m appreciating the evidence against Lai Khan accused and this fact resulted into his acquittal." The appellant however made a representation, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have carefully perused the record of this case with their assistance. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the perfor mance of the appellant in his capacity as Judicial Officer cannot be made a subject‑matter of adverse remarks as laid down in P L D 1966 Lah. 910. He has also made a grievance that the appellant was not heard in his defence, therefore, this would be a case of audi alterpm partem against him. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the appellant was just only a Member of the Bench, which was presided by the person not less than the rank of Lt.‑Col., therefore, the appellant was not a person authorised to take a decision in the said case. 6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that without going into the merits of the case, the appeal is liable to be dismiss ed on the ground that the order passed against the appellant is an order, passed by the M. L. A. which has got immunity under P. C. O., 1981. 7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and have also taken note of the fact that the report was not initiated either by the reporting officer or by the next higher authority in the case of the appellant, yet the fact remains that the entry in the dossier, has been made under the direction of M. L. A. Zone A, which is a fact undis puted. This being so the law on this point is absolutely clear that any order passed by M. L. A, cannot be a subject of adjudication on its merits, by any Court of this country including the Tribunal as well, as such like orders so protected by the promulgation of P. C. O. 1981. 8. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to look into the merits of this case. 9. Resultantly the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. There will be no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties. M. I. Appeal dismissed.