1985 PLP 545 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 5‑1‑1983 of the Central Service .Tribunal; whereby petitioner's appeal from an order under section 12‑A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 removing him from service as Officer on Special Duty in the Establishment Division, was dismissed. The relevant facts as narrated in the petition are that the petitioner was a practising Advocate when he was appointed as District and Sessions Judge, Northern Areas Gilgit on 20‑2‑1973 vide Notification No.E‑II‑2/2/72 issued by the Kashmir Affairs Division, on ad hoc basis. By a subsequent Notification dated 12‑9‑1973 this appointment was made regular w.e.f. 26‑2‑1973 but till further orders. He was also upgraded to Grade‑19 with effect from 1‑11‑1974. He was transferred as Officer on Special Duty Establishment Division to Rawalpindi by Notification, dated 7‑2‑1978 and later on 14‑5‑1978 his headquarter was shifted to Peshawar in the same capacity. Ultimately by Notification No.7/4/78 AV‑14, dated 10‑7‑1978, treated ‑ as under section 12‑A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, he was removed from service. The petitioner moved a review petition against the order of his removal which was rejected on 12‑5‑1980. His appeal before the Central Service Tribunal also failed, therefore, he seeks leave to appeal. The main contentions raised are that the Service Tribunal having held that it had the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, did not apply all the rules attracted to the removal of a civil servant; that in particular the rule of natural justice as to opportunity of hearing was not satisfied by the Departmental Authority in passing the order of removal; that it was wrongly assumed that the civil servants appointed under the arrangements for Northern Areas were not entitled to normal safeguards provided by the Service laws and that the fact that at the time of removal the petitioner was serving as Officer on‑‑Special Duty will not make any difference. Although the last but one contention might need examination in a case dealt with otherwise than under section 12‑A of the Civil Servants Act, it is not necessary to do so in this case because the action under this section is notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the other provisions of the Act. For the same reasons prima facie the other safeguards and considerations available in a normal case of removal under the other provisions of the Act, would not be available qua removal under section 12‑A. We do not deem it necessary to examine this aspect nor the question whether the Service Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in this case; because, the petitioner stated that he has no desire at all, to join service. What he wanted was only to get the order corrected and law declared. It would not be proper in such circumstances to grant leave to appeal for an academic exercise. This for the foregoing reason, is not a fit case to do so. The questions involved herein might further be examined in an appropriate matter. It needs to be mentioned that the Service Tribunal could have repelled the argument regarding mala fides for the reason that no basis were laid for the same by the petitioner and that being so it was not necessary to make remarks about his having been found undesirable person for the Northern Areas. Even otherwise too when the merits of the case, in so far as the factual aspects are concerned, were not examined on account of assumed reason that the action having been taken by the President in his pleasure regarding an appointee for Northern Areas and that too under section 12‑A of the Civil Servants Act, it was not necessary to single out this one aspect of the merits for adverse comment against the petitioner. After hearing the learned Deputy Attorney‑General on this aspect of the case it is observed that to the said extent the remarks in the impugned judgment were unessential and are, therefore, directed to be expunged. With the above observations and direction this being not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal, the same is refused. Suo motu notice only to the Deputy Attorney‑General Mr.Munir A. Shaikh for expungement of remarks in the impugned judgment having been issued, no objection was raised by him. M. I. Petition dismissed.