PLD 1980

P L D 1980 Supreme Court 37 (PLP)

M. H. SHAMIM-Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD-Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Removal from Service (Special Provisions) Regulation S8 of 1969
Decided Date
Civil Petition No. 47 of 1978, decided on 22nd January, 1980.
Honorable Judges
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P L D 1980 Supreme Court 37 (PLP)
Forum / Court Removal from Service (Special Provisions) Regulation S8 of 1969
Bench Members Single Bench
Parties M. H. SHAMIM-Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD-Respondent
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1980 Supreme Court 37 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1980 Supreme Court 37 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Removal from Service (Special Provisions) Regulation S8 of 1969 bench comprising: Honorable Judges.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1980 Supreme Court 37 (PLP) (M. H. SHAMIM-Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Record for Petitioner.
  • Irshad Hassan Khan, Deputy Attorney-General, S. M. Shahudul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Fazal-i-Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
  • Date of hearing, 10th November, 1979.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 20-11-1977 in Appeal No. 628 (L) of 1974). Removal from Service (Special Provisions) Regulation [S8 of 1969]

Para. 3 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 270(4), Validation of Laws Act (LXIII of 1975), Sched. and Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4-Government servant-Removal from service-Appeal-Proceedings taken, orders made, and acts done, or purported to have been taken, made, or done under Martial Law Regulation No. 58-Fall within purview of validity and immunity from judicial review granted by Art. 270(4) of 1973 Constitution notwithstanding such Regulation not finding place in list of laws validated under Validation of Laws Act, 1975-Such orders nevertheless, held, open to appeal and revision under Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and Service Tribunal duty bound to examine on merits all questions of law and fact sought to be raised by appellants.-[Civil service-Question of law-Appeal (civil)-Revision (civil)]. M. Yamin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan P L D 1980 S C

22. Shaukat Ali, Senior Advocate assisted by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on

Judgment & Decree

ANWARUL HAQ, C J.-The petitioner M. H. Shamim joined the Police Service of Pakistan in March, 1952, and was serving as District Officer, Frontier Constabulary, Tank, in the North-West Frontier Province, when he was placed under suspension by the Government of Pakistan under Martial Law Regulation No. 58, and eventually dismissed from service on the 12th of May, 1970. He filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal. under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, but the same was dismissed by the Tribunal 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 under Article 212 of the Constitution. It is contended by Mr. Shaukat Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Tribunal was in error in thinking that it had no jurisdiction in the matter, as, in fact, Martial Law Regulation No. 58- was void ab initio; having been promulgated by the usurper .General Agha Muhammad-Yahya Khan ; that the Regulation was unnecessary in view of the existence of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules,. and could not, therefore, be condoned even under the doctrine of necessity ; that the order of suspension passed against the petitioner was invalid also for the reason that although the order was made on the 3rd of December, 1969, yet M. L. R. 58 was not published in the gazette until the 16th of December, 1969 ; and that, in any case, the Regulation being a temporary law and having ceased to exist owing to its non-inclusion in the list of laws validated by the Validation of Laws Act, 1975, all actions taken thereunder would automatically disappear, as the order of dismissal was not a past and closed transaction. The learned counsel further contends that the Tribunal has erred in thinking that all actions taken under the Martial Law Regulation in question, stood fully and completely protected under clause (4) of Article 270 of the 1973 Constitution; and that, in any case, such a view ignores the fact that the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner were fully protected in terms of Articles 177 and 178 of the 1962 Constitution read with paragraph 3 (c) of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1969 ; and that under clause (3) of Article 178 of the aforesaid Constitution, the petitioner had a right to apply for review to the President of Pakistan, which he did, but his review petition has not yet been disposed of. It is not necessary to deal at any length with these submissions, for most of these points have been examined by us in Civil Appeal No. K-1 of 1978, and we have come to the conclusion that irrespective of the fact that M. L. R. 58 does not find place in the list of laws validated under the Validation of Laws Act, 1975, yet all proceedings taken, orders made and acts done, or purported to have been taken, made or done under this Martial Law Regulation falls within the purview of the validity and immunity from judicial review granted by clause (4) of Article 270 of the Constitution, but at the same time the orders were open to appeal and revision under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and it was the duty of the Service Tribunal to examine on merits all questions of law and fact sought to be raised by the appellants before it to challenge the order of their dismissal made under, M. L. R. 58 in May, 1970. On this view of the matter, we would convert this petition into an appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal, and direct that the appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant be heard expeditiously on all questions. of law and fact sought to be raised by him in the light of our detailed judgment in PLD1980SC

22. As the matter was still at the petition stage, there will be no order as to costs. S. A. H. Appeal allowed.