Doctrine of pleasure

2023 CLD 1064 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 157, 163, 166 & 508(2)Corporate Governance Rules, 2013, Rr. 2(25), 2-C, 3-A(1) & (3)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionNominee DirectorRemovalDoctrine of pleasureApplicabilityPetitioners were nominee directors who were aggrieved of their removal from the Board of DirectorsValidityNominee Director had no personal right to claim benefit of tenure available to other DirectorsEven removal of Nominee Directors was based upon doctrine of pleasurePetitioners had rightly been removed which was the prerogative of nominating body i.e. Federal Government

It was not constitutional mandate of Courts to run and manage public or private institutions or to micro-manage them or to interfere in their policy and administrative internal matters

Courts neither enjoyed such jurisdiction nor possessed requisite technical expertise in such regard

Courts should step in only when there arise justiciable disputes or causes of action between parties involving violation of Constitution or law

Removal of petitioners by their nominating body was the sole authority of that body within their policy domain to either allow petitioners to continue as members of Board of Directors or to remove them or to reconstitute the Board

Such action of authority could not be called in question by petitioners

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as petitioners failed to highlight their vested right as they were appointed by Federal Government and were not Independent Directors

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2019 PLC(CS) 266 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Para. 1.18(4)Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011, Seventh Sched, Pt. I, Item No. 16Assistant Advocate-General, office ofPleasure postDoctrine of pleasureScopeContinuous absence from dutyMisconductRemoval from service

Under the doctrine of pleasure, all the posts of the Advocate-General Office were held at the pleasure of the Government and were terminable at its will

Appointments of the Additional and Assistant Advocate- General were made by the Chief Minister at his option and pleasure in terms of Item 16 of Part-I of Seventh Schedule of the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011

Furthermore sub-para (4) of para 1.18 of Law Department Manual, 1938 explicitly mandated that an Additional or Assistant Advocate-General shall hold the office during the pleasure of the Governor/Chief Minister and may liable to be removed from the office at any time without notice

By nature of his appointment and functions, an Assistant Advocate-General had no vested right to force continuation of his appointment against the wishes of the Government, particularly, when he no longer inspired confidence of the Government

Appointment letter of the petitioner, in the present case, vividly reflected that his appointment as Assistant Advocate-General was made especially in the "public interest", therefore, if due to his long absence from duty, such service was dispensed with by the competent authority, the same would also be considered to be done in the public interest

Since the petitioner had no vested right to post of Assistant Advocate-General, there was no need to issue any notice to him by the competent authority before his services were dispensed with vide the impugned order

Even then petitioner was given personal hearing at the office of Advocate General, but after that he again remained absent from office

When the pay of the petitioner was stopped and he moved various applications for medical leave, he was asked to attend the Office of the Advocate-General, and was given different options which the petitioner promised to consider but despite that he did not attend his office till date and remained absent

In such circumstances, the petitioner could not say that he has not been given any opportunity of hearing

Long and continuous absence of petitioner from duty was to be treated as gross misconduct due to which he had been rightly removed from service

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2019 PLC(CS) 266 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Pleasure postDoctrine of pleasureScope

Pleasure doctrine was not based upon any special prerogative [of the Government] but was based on public policy and was in public interest and for public good

Basis of the pleasure doctrine was that the public was vitally interested in the efficiency and integrity of civil services and, therefore, public policy required, public interest needed and public good demanded that civil servants who were inefficient, dishonest or corrupt or had become a security risk should not continue in service.

2019 PLD 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Para. 1.18(4)Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011, Seventh Sched, Pt. I, Item No. 16Assistant Advocate-General, office ofPleasure postDoctrine of pleasureScopeContinuous absence from dutyMisconductRemoval from service

Under the doctrine of pleasure, all the posts of the Advocate-General Office were held at the pleasure of the Government and were terminable at its will

Appointments of the Additional and Assistant Advocate- General were made by the Chief Minister at his option and pleasure in terms of Item 16 of Part-I of Seventh Schedule of the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011

Furthermore sub-para (4) of para 1.18 of Law Department Manual, 1938 explicitly mandated that an Additional or Assistant Advocate-General shall hold the office during the pleasure of the Governor/Chief Minister and may liable to be removed from the office at any time without notice

By nature of his appointment and functions, an Assistant Advocate-General had no vested right to force continuation of his appointment against the wishes of the Government, particularly, when he no longer inspired confidence of the Government

Appointment letter of the petitioner, in the present case, vividly reflected that his appointment as Assistant Advocate-General was made especially in the "public interest", therefore, if due to his long absence from duty, such service was dispensed with by the competent authority, the same would also be considered to be done in the public interest

Since the petitioner had no vested right to post of Assistant Advocate-General, there was no need to issue any notice to him by the competent authority before his services were dispensed with vide the impugned order

Even then petitioner was given personal hearing at the office of Advocate General, but after that he again remained absent from office

When the pay of the petitioner was stopped and he moved various applications for medical leave, he was asked to attend the Office of the Advocate-General, and was given different options which the petitioner promised to consider but despite that he did not attend his office till date and remained absent

In such circumstances, the petitioner could not say that he has not been given any opportunity of hearing

Long and continuous absence of petitioner from duty was to be treated as gross misconduct due to which he had been rightly removed from service

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2019 PLD 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Pleasure postDoctrine of pleasureScope

Pleasure doctrine was not based upon any special prerogative [of the Government] but was based on public policy and was in public interest and for public good

Basis of the pleasure doctrine was that the public was vitally interested in the efficiency and integrity of civil services and, therefore, public policy required, public interest needed and public good demanded that civil servants who were inefficient, dishonest or corrupt or had become a security risk should not continue in service.

2016 CLD 134 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Scope

Doctrine of pleasure has almost become redundant and the concept of absolute, unfettered or unguided exercise of discretion by public authorities is treated as alien to the essence of rule of law.