2025 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD ASIF, J.

Through this Intra Court Appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment dated 29.10.2018 (herein "impugned"), passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court, whereby Writ Petition No.4286/2017, filed by the appellant No.1, has been dismissed.

2. The ephemeral facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Assistant Director (Trainee) on 24.06.1980 in OGDCL/respondents and after completion of training of two years, the appellant was appointed as Assistant Driller on 24.06.1982 on probation for a period of six months and he was confirmed as Assistant Driller on 21.04.1983. Finally, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Driller in Executive Group on 01.07.2011; however, his Diploma and Secondary School Certificate, issued by the Secretary Board of Secondary Education, Karachi, submitted at the time of his initial appointment, were declared bogus by the respective departments. The appellant was charged under disciplinary proceedings, vide office memorandum dated 11.04.2013, and he was awarded a major penalty of reduction to a lower post and compulsory retirement. Subsequently, he was dismissed from his service, vide office memorandum dated 24.07.2013 in supersession of compulsory retirement and reduction to a lower post. Aggrieved of it, the appellant filed the above captioned petition, which was dismissed by learned Single Bench of this Court. Hence this Intra Court Appeal, filed under Section-3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant, inter alia, contended that OGDCL has violated the principle of natural justice while converting compulsory retirement into dismissal from service vide O.M dated 24.07.2013; that no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once; that the impugned judgment, passed by the leaned Single Bench of this Court is unjust, arbitrary, devoid of merits and is not sustainable in the eye.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the appellant approached this Court with unclean hands, concealing material facts as he had previously filed Writ Petition No. 3960/2013 on the same subject matter, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 03.02.2015. It was further contended that the OGDCL implemented its initial policy regarding fake degrees and certificates through a notification dated 24.03.2013, which was subsequently revised and re-notified on 31.12.2013. In compliance with instructions from the Federal Government, the diploma submitted by the appellant at the time of his appointment was sent to the Punjab Board of Technical Education, Lahore, for verification. The Board confirmed that the diploma neither originated from the claimed institution nor was the institution traceable. Per learned counsel, the appellant's Secondary School Certificate was verified by the Secretary of the Board of Secondary Education Karachi and was found to be forged and tampered, as such, the learned Single Bench of this Court rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

5. Heard. Record perused.

6. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant secured permanent employment with OGDCL/respondent on 21.04.1983. Subsequently, his Diploma and Secondary School Certificate, issued by Secretary Board of Secondary Education Karachi submitted at the time of his initial appointment, were declared bogus, which initially led to awarding major penalty of reduction to a lower post and compulsory retirement and finally from dismissal from his service, vide office memorandum dated 24.07.2013.

7. It is a matter of record that the appellant had previously instituted Writ Petition No.3960/2013 before this Hon'ble Court, challenging the imposition of a major penalty involving reduction in rank, compulsory retirement, and dismissal from service, vide O.M dated 24.07.2013. This Court, by order dated 03.02.2015, dismissed the said petition for non-prosecution. The appellant, instead of seeking restoration of the earlier writ petition, subsequently filed a second writ petition, being W.P. No.4286/2017, arising out of the same cause of action, without making any disclosure regarding the prior proceedings. This act amounts to the suppression of material facts. It reflects an abuse of the process of law, as the second petition effectively sought to re-agitate issues already adjudicated, thereby leading to multiplicity of litigation.

8. Even otherwise, after first unsuccessful attempt, the onus was on the appellant to establish, before the learned Single Bench of this Court, that he had not committed fraud to obtain employment in suppression of his original position or that his dismissal order, vide memorandum dated 24.07.2013, was illegal and against the principle of natural justice, However, the appellant once again failed to satisfy the learned Single Bench in this regard.

9. Obtaining a judicial order based on inaccurate facts or misrepresented documentation constitutes a serious infraction within the legal framework, as it undermines the sanctity of judicial proceedings and may lead to substantial injustice. A party seeking relief has a legal duty to disclose all material facts with honesty and precision. This obligation is rooted in the doctrine of uberrima fides, a principle mandating the utmost good faith in dealings with the court. It is essential for litigants to substantiate their claims with accurate and relevant documents; reliance on erroneous or irrelevant material represents a breach of this fundamental duty.

10. Under English law, a party, applying for relief, is subject to a stringent obligation to disclose all material facts. This obligation arises from the doctrine of uberrima fides (utmost good faith), which mandates full honesty and transparency in representations made to the court. The reliance can be placed in Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 12A (2023), Civil Procedure, para. 1657, states as under:- "A party applying for an interim injunction must make full and frank disclosure of all material facts known to them. Failure to do so may result in the discharge of the injunction, even if the non-disclosure was innocent or inadvertent."

11. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is an extraordinary, equitable, discretionary, and prerogative remedy. It is invoked primarily for the enforcement of fundamental rights and to rectify instances of illegality or irregularity committed by the Executive. Given the extraordinary nature of this jurisdiction, it is imperative that a petitioner approaching this Court must do so with clean hands, presenting all relevant facts fully and transparently, without any concealment or suppression. Failure to make an honest and complete disclosure of all material facts may render the petitioner guilty of misleading the Court, warranting the dismissal of the petition.

12. Now, reverting to the instant Intra Court Appeal. The remedy of Intra Court Appeal has been provided to a person aggrieved by a decision of a learned Single Judge rendered in exercise of civil original jurisdiction. The said provision, for convenience of reference, is reproduced herein below:- "

3. Appeal to High Court in certain cases.

(1) An appeal shall lie to a Bench of two or more Judges of a High Court from a decree passed or final order made by a single Judge of that Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. (2) An appeal shall also lie to a Bench of two or more Judges of a High Court from an order made by a Single Judge of that Court under [clause (1) of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan] not being an order made under sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (b) of that clause: Provided that the appeal referred to in this subsection shall not be available or competent if the application brought before the High Court under Article 199 arises out of any proceedings in which the law applicable provided for at least one appeal [or one revision or one review] to any court, tribunal or authority against the original order. (3) No appeal shall lie under subsection (1) or subsection (2) from an interlocutory order or an order which does not dispose of the entire case before the Court. (4) Nothing contained in this Ordinance shall be construed as affecting:- (a) any appeal under the provisions of the Letters Patent applicable to a High Court or under section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), which was pending immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance; or (b) any appeal or petition for leave to appeal from a decree, judgment or order of a single Judge of a High Court made to the Supreme Court before the commencement of the Law Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972." According to proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, the remedy of Intra Court Appeal is not available if the constitutional petition filed before this Court in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, arose out of any proceedings in which the law applicable, provided for at least one appeal or one revision or one review to any Court, Tribunal or Authority against the original order. Insofar as the case in hand is concerned, admittedly the appellant assailed the orders passed by the Competent Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority in the constitutional petition, hence the bar contained under proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, comes into play and impede the way of the appellant to maintain this appeal.

13. The question relating to maintainability of Intra Court Appeal in terms of proviso to subsection (2) of Section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 came up for consideration in the case of "Mst. Karim Bibi and others v. Hussain Bakhsh and another" (PLD 1984 SC 344), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that where there is at least one appeal against the original order, in the proceedings, then no appeal would be competent from the order of a single judge in constitutional jurisdiction. Meaning thereby that the test is whether the original order, passed in the proceedings was subject to an appeal under the relevant law, irrespective of the fact as to whether the remedy of appeal was availed or not by a party. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases reported as JS Bank Limited, Karachi and others v. Province of Punjab through Secretary Food, Lahore and others (2021 SCMR 1617), SME Bank Limited through President Islamabad and others v. Izhar ul Haq (2019 SCMR 939), Messrs Punjab Sugar Mills v. Government of Punjab and others (2011 SCMR 1950) and ECHO West International (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore v. Government of Punjab through Secretary and 4 others (PLD 2009 SC 406) has held that in the matters wherein remedy of appeal, review and revision has been provided against the order impugned in a petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the Intra Court Appeal against the order passed by a learned Single Judge is not maintainable.

14. We have further strengthened our view from the recent judgment titled "International Islamic University, Islamabad through Rector and another v. Syed Naveed Altaf and others" (2024 SCMR 472), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the order of High Court declaring the Intra Court Appeal as not maintainable due to availability of appeal against the original order by observing that where decision is made by Single Judge of High Court in proceedings under challenge through constitution petition, the essential requirement to invoke the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance for determination of maintainability of Intra Court Appeal is to see whether the remedy of at least one appeal, review or revision is available under the law against the original order.

15. The upshot of the above is that the instant Intra Court Appeal is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed. SA/127/Isl. Appeal dismissed.