Removal from office

2024 PLD 129 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 140Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017), S. 230Punjab Law Department Manual, 1938, Part 1, Chap. 1, Cl. 1.5Advocate General and other law officersRemoval from officePublic interest

Dispute was with regard to notification appointing Law Officers, who were also Law Officers in the Government preceding previous Government

Validity

Such Law Officers could not be justified on the touch stone of public interest and if they were allowed to continue as Law Officers, that would defeat the entire purpose of transparency urged and appointment of those independent Law Officers who have not been appointed by any political Government earlier to ensure free and fair elections in the public interest

High Court declared the notification as ultra vires of law and S.230 of Elections Act, 2017, to the extent of such Law Officers and not sustainable

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2022 PLC(CS) 866 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Removal from officeScope

To accuse and then dismiss the holder of an office created by statute without proper inquiry into disputed questions of fact is not sustainable in law.

2020 CLC 2063 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.27 [as amended by Sindh Local Government (Amendment) Act (V of 2019)]No confidence motionRemoval from office

Petitioners were aggrieved of notifications issued in pursuance of vote of no-confidence by simple majority whereby they were removed from their offices

Validity

From initiation of motion of no confidence and culminating in issuance of schedule for fresh election by Election Commission, petitioners failed to identify any infirmity

Challenge to notification for re-election was devoid of merit and de novo deliberation in respect of notifications in question were without merit

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 PLC(CS) 613 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 33Administrator Market CommitteeRemoval from office

Petitioner was removed from office of Administrator Market Committee and District Officer Agriculture (Extension) was nominated as Administrator

Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by Single Judge of High Court

Validity

Funds of Market Committee were frozen when petitioner was appointed as Administrator and same could only be utilized or released with the approval of the Government

Notification for appointment of petitioner was an interim arrangement till the constitution of Market Committee

Constitutional petition was not maintainable as petitioner did not have any vested right on the basis of which he could claim his entitlement to hold office of Administrator

Government, in pursuance of policy and in the public interest had removed all Administrators who were private persons and brought the office of Administrative under the control of Agricultural Department

Impugned judgment passed by the Single Judge was set aside

Intra court appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2014 PLD 38 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3(5), (7) & (12)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionChairman, National Database and Registration Authority ("NADRA")Removal from officeLegalityMala fides of GovernmentPetitioner was appointed as Chairman, NADRA

Federal Government removed petitioner from his office on the basis that he had been appointed by the previous Government without following the proper procedure in law; that his appointment was based on his political affiliations; that he was involved in corrupt practices and committed pilferage of millions of rupees

After removal of petitioner from office Federal Government appointed respondent as Acting Chairman, NADRA

Legality

Notification of petitioner's appointment showed that he was appointed as Chairman, NADRA in accordance with S.3(5) of National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, and said post was a tenure post

Petitioner could not have been removed from office of Chairman except by adopting the procedure for termination from such office provided under S.3(12) of National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000

Even if appointment of petitioner was illegal as argued by Federal Government, his removal from office should not have taken place by an illegal procedure, and he should have been provided an opportunity of hearing

Federal Government did not argue the reasons it had provided in its summary by which petitioner was removed from office

Instead of following the law Federal Government had adopted a threatening attitude, which indicated that the Government frightened the petitioner with regard to his future actions in case he decided contrary to the wishes of the Government

Such conduct by Government showed its ill-attitude, bad governance and its ill-design plans for the future

Federal Government avoided to refer the case of petitioner to the Federal Commission for Selection of Heads of Public Sector Organizations, which had been formed on the directions of the Supreme Court and had the jurisdiction to remove heads of statutory bodies in case of their wrongful appointmwents

Federal Government appointed respondent as Acting Chairman, NADRA by way of a special measure as his entire appointment process including summary of his appointment, finalization on the administrative side, notification of appointment, and issuance of salary cheque were completed on the same day

Neither Federal Government nor respondent could explain as to what was the urgency because of which the process of respondent's appointment was completed so hurriedly

Removal of petitioner appeared to be case of victimization

Federal Government woke up from a lengthy dream after election authorities referred cases to NADRA for certain verifications, and the petitioner refused to follow directives (of the Government)

Proceedings initiated for removal of petitioner as Chairman, NADRA was a colourful exercise tainted with mala fides, consequently High Court set aside notification whereby services of petitioner were terminated

High Court also set aside notification by which respondent had been assigned to look after the work of the office of Chairman, NADRA

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2014 PLC(CS) 685 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 3(5), (7) & (12)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionChairman, National Database and Registration Authority ("NADRA")Removal from officeLegalityMala fides of GovernmentPetitioner was appointed as Chairman, NADRA

Federal Government removed petitioner from his office on the basis that he had been appointed by the previous Government without following the proper procedure in law; that his appointment was based on his political affiliations; that he was involved in corrupt practices and committed pilferage of millions of rupees

After removal of petitioner from office Federal Government appointed respondent as Acting Chairman, NADRA

Legality

Notification of petitioner's appointment showed that he was appointed as Chairman, NADRA in accordance with S.3(5) of National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, and said post was a tenure post

Petitioner could not have been removed from office of Chairman except by adopting the procedure for termination from such office provided under S.3(12) of National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000

Even if appointment of petitioner was illegal as argued by Federal Government, his removal from office should not have taken place by an illegal procedure, and he should have been provided an opportunity of hearing

Federal Government did not argue the reasons it had provided in its summary by which petitioner was removed from office

Instead of following the law Federal Government had adopted a threatening attitude, which indicated that the Government frightened the petitioner with regard to his future actions in case he decided contrary to the wishes of the Government

Such conduct by Government showed its ill-attitude, bad governance and its ill-design plans for the future

Federal Government avoided to refer the case of petitioner to the Federal Commission for Selection of Heads of Public Sector Organizations, which had been formed on the directions of the Supreme Court and had the jurisdiction to remove heads of statutory bodies in case of their wrongful appointments

Federal Government appointed respondent as Acting Chairman, NADRA by way of a special measure as his entire appointment process including summary of his appointment, finalization on the administrative side, notification of appointment, and issuance of salary cheque was completed on the same day

Neither Federal Government nor respondent could explain as to what was the urgency because of which the process of respondent's appointment was completed so hurriedly

Removal of petitioner appeared to be case of victimization

Federal Government woke up from a lengthy dream after election authorities referred cases to NADRA for certain verifications, and the petitioner refused to follow directives (of the Government)

Proceedings initiated for removal of petitioner as Chairman, NADRA was a colourful exercise tainted with mala fides, consequently High Court set aside notification whereby services of petitioner were terminated

High Court also set aside notification by which respondent had been assigned to look after the work of the office of Chairman, NADRA

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2013 PLD 598 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 100Attorney General for Pakistan holding office during the pleasure of the President of PakistanRemoval from officeScopeLoss of confidence

Appointment of Attorney General involved an element of lawyer-client relationship and loss of confidence therefore, was a very relevant criterion for withdrawal of pleasure.