2002 P L C (C.S ) 1016
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Tanvir Ahmed Khan
and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
AZHAR MAJEED KHALID
Versus
FORCE COMMANDER AIRPORT SECURITY FORCE QUAID‑E‑AZAM
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT HQ KARACHI and 2 others
Civil Appeal No. 152 of 1999, decided on 29th January, 2002.
(On appeal from the Judgment dated 1‑7‑1998 of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeal No.477(K) of 1998).
Gul Muhammad v. The Force Commander and another 1999 SCMR 2935 and Fasihuddin v. Khawar Latif. Butt and others 1993 SCMR 1 distinguished.
Kunwar Mukhtar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
Ch. Sultan Mansoor, Deputy Attorney‑General and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Muhammad Munir (Legal Officer), ASF.
Muhammad Ishaque, Security Officer, ASF.
Respondent No.3: Ex parte.
Date of hearing: 29th January, 2002.
JUDGMENT
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J. ‑‑‑This appeal by leave of this Court is directed against the judgment dated 1‑7‑1998 of learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby Appeal No.477(K) of 1998 filed by the appellant was dismissed in limine.
2. The facts relevant for decision of this appeal are that the appellant on 6‑7‑1992 was appointed as an Assistant. Sub‑Inspector by the Airport Security Force Authority. According to him, he had fallen ill, but this fact was not believed by the relevant authorities. He asserted that on 6‑2‑1998 he was produced before Chief Security Officer, who after hearing him for a few minutes, dismissed him from service. He has claimed that being a civil servant he could not be Court‑martialled and dismissed as such.
3. Vide order dated 27‑1‑1999, leave to appeal was granted to examine the following:‑‑
“We are inclined to grant leave to consider, as to whether the Tribunal has correctly applied the ratio decidendi of the judgment of this Court in the case of Force Commander, Airport Security Force, Karachi and others v. Haji Muhammad Rashid and another (1996 SCMR 1614). Leave is accordingly granted.”
4. Section 7‑A was added in the Airport. Security Force Act, 1975 on 7‑8‑1984. Again in the year 1994, a new subsection (4) was added to section 7‑A, which is as follows:‑‑
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, except the authorities specified in subsections (1) and (2) of section 7‑F, no other Authority, Tribunal or Court shall have jurisdiction to vary, modify, alter, annul, set aside, revise or review any order passed by any officer of the Force, authorized under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 (XXXIX of 1952).”
5. The fate of this case hinges upon the interpretation of aforesaid subsection (4).
6. In the reported case as Gul Muhammad v. The Force. Commander and another (1999 SCMR 2935), a Full Bench of this Court, comprising three Judges having taken into consideration the ratio of two judgments of this Court, reported as Fasihuddin v. Khawar Latif Butt and others (1993 SCMR 1) and Force Commander, Airport Security Force, Karachi and others v. Haji Muhammad Rashid and another (1996 SCMR 1614), held that under above subsection (4) notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, jurisdiction of any Authority, Tribunal or Court to deal with an order passed by any officer Airport Security Force, authorized under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, was completely barred. Also it was held that after insertion of sub‑clause‑ (4) the ratio of just above-referred two judgments was not applicable. In other words, the Tribunal or for that matter any authority, except as mentioned in section 7(A), would have no jurisdiction ‘to vary, modify, alter, annul, set aside, revise or review any order passed by an officer of the force authorised under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952.
7. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the appellant was dismissed by the Chief Security Officer, Airport Security Force, who is an officer of force within the meaning of Army Act, 1952. It being so, the Tribunal rightly declined to entertain the appeal for want of jurisdiction. No interference is warranted.
8. In consequence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs,
Q.M.H./M.A.K./A‑200/S Appeal dismissed
