1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Mian GHULAM NABI and others Versus PUNJAB GOVERNMENT and others
| Citation | 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mirza. J |
| Parties | Mian GHULAM NABI and others Versus PUNJAB GOVERNMENT and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mirza. J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Mian GHULAM NABI and others Versus PUNJAB GOVERNMENT and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Ziaullah for Petitioners.
- S.M. Zubair, Addl. A.‑G with Muhammad Amin S.O. Health Department for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st December, 1987.
- 5. Case was partly heard yesterday. Learned counsel for the petitioners took an exception to the extension of the petitioners' suspension from service with retrospective effect. Mr. Tanvir Ahmed Khan, learned Additional Advocate‑General who appeared for the respondents yesterday established a contact with the Secretary, Health to discuss the case with him. He was informed by the Secretary that he had today passed another order further extending the suspension of the petitioners.
- 6. Mr. S.M. Zubair, learned Additional Advocate‑General has appeared today and has produced an order of the Secretary, Health dated 20‑12‑1987 whereby suspension of the petitioners has been extended for another three months w.e.f. 3‑12‑1987.
- 7. I had summoned the file to examine as to whether the competent authority before ordering the extension in the suspension period had applied his mind to the facts of the case or not. Learned Additional Advocate‑General has, however, raised a preliminary objection that since the order of suspension can be challenged in an appeal before the Service Tribunal which has exclusive jurisdiction in the matter, it cannot be agitated before this Court in constitutional jurisdiction by virtue of Article 212(2) of the Constitution. For this proposition, he reties on "Muhammad Sadiq Khokhar v. Engineer‑in‑Chief Army, G. H. Q. and another" reproduced in 1985 S C M R 63. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had earlier approached the Punjab Service Tribunal but their appeal was dismissed as incompetent as the learned Service Tribunal took the view that the order of suspension was not a final order within the meaning of section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to controvert the proposition canvassed by the learned .Additional Advocate‑General which is fully supported by the authority cited by him. In the precedent case, petitioner challenged his suspension order in a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the matter was covered by Article 212(2) of the Constitution. Supreme Court upheld the view taken by the High Court. Relevant observations of the Supreme Court may be reproduced hereunder: ‑
- In the aforesaid view of the matter, preliminary objection raised by the learned Additional Advocate‑General is upheld with the result that the writ petition being not maintainable is dismissed in limine.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.212 & 199 Civil services‑‑Suspension‑‑Order of suspension can be challenged in an appeal before Service Tribunal which has exclusive jurisdiction in the matter‑‑Such order, held, could not be agitated before High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction by virtue of Art.212(2) of Constitution‑‑Writ Petition being not maintainable dismissed in limine. Muhammad Sadiq Khokhar v. Engineer‑in‑Chief Army G.H.Q. and another 1985 S C M R 63 rel.
Judgment & Decree
S.M. Zubair, Addl. A.‑G with Muhammad Amin S.O. Health Department for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st December, 1987. Petitioners who are all Drug Inspectors were placed under suspension on 3‑3‑1987 for a‑period of three months. On the expiry of this period, neither any order extending the suspension of the petitioners was passed nor were the petitioners reinstated. They thus, remained suspended. Petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were served with the charge‑sheets on 24‑6‑1987 but petitioner No.3 has not been charge‑sheeted till today. 2. Feeling aggrieved with their continued suspension, petitioners filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal which was dismissed by the learned Tribunal as incompetent as also time‑barred vide order dated 15‑1‑1987. 3. Petitioners have approached this Court through the present constitutional petition praying therein that their continuous suspension from the service be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. 4. Report was sent for from the Secretary Health, Government of Punjab, respondent No.l who submitted the same on 12‑12‑1987. Alongwith the comments was appended an order dated 1‑12‑1987 passed by the Secretary, Health extending the suspension of the petitioners from 3‑6‑1987 to 2‑12‑1987. 5. Case was partly heard yesterday. Learned counsel for the petitioners took an exception to the extension of the petitioners' suspension from service with retrospective effect. Mr. Tanvir Ahmed Khan, learned Additional Advocate‑General who appeared for the respondents yesterday established a contact with the Secretary, Health to discuss the case with him. He was informed by the Secretary that he had today passed another order further extending the suspension of the petitioners. 6. Mr. S.M. Zubair, learned Additional Advocate‑General has appeared today and has produced an order of the Secretary, Health dated 20‑12‑1987 whereby suspension of the petitioners has been extended for another three months w.e.f. 3‑12‑1987. 7. I had summoned the file to examine as to whether the competent authority before ordering the extension in the suspension period had applied his mind to the facts of the case or not. Learned Additional Advocate‑General has, however, raised a preliminary objection that since the order of suspension can be challenged in an appeal before the Service Tribunal which has exclusive jurisdiction in the matter, it cannot be agitated before this Court in constitutional jurisdiction by virtue of Article 212(2) of the Constitution. For this proposition, he reties on "Muhammad Sadiq Khokhar v. Engineer‑in‑Chief Army, G. H. Q. and another" reproduced in 1985 S C M R 63. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had earlier approached the Punjab Service Tribunal but their appeal was dismissed as incompetent as the learned Service Tribunal took the view that the order of suspension was not a final order within the meaning of section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to controvert the proposition canvassed by the learned .Additional Advocate‑General which is fully supported by the authority cited by him. In the precedent case, petitioner challenged his suspension order in a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the matter was covered by Article 212(2) of the Constitution. Supreme Court upheld the view taken by the High Court. Relevant observations of the Supreme Court may be reproduced hereunder: ‑ "The petitioner feels aggrieved from the order of his suspension and in so far as it has' taken effect it has attained finality. It is not disputed either that the petitioner's grievance is germane to the terms and conditions of service and a dispute with regard thereto falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal‑ under clause (2) of, Article 212 of the Constitution. Non‑obstante clause in Article 212(2) gives it overriding effect and cons1st ently with the principle of harmonious interpretation of the Constitution the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition moved by the petitioner for want of jurisdiction." In the aforesaid view of the matter, preliminary objection raised by the learned Additional Advocate‑General is upheld with the result that the writ petition being not maintainable is dismissed in limine. S.Q. /G‑151/L Petition dismissed.