Police officers walk past the Supreme Court of Pakistan building in Islamabad, Pakistan April 6, 2022. REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has held that no court has the authority to decide a case outside its jurisdiction. It held that employees of Cantonment Boards are not civil servants; Therefore, the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) lacks jurisdiction over their service cases and such employees can approach the appropriate High Court for redress.
“It is the court’s primary duty to first decide the question of jurisdiction in cases where doubt about jurisdiction is raised, and in any such situation it is the court’s responsibility to endeavor to decide the question of jurisdiction at an early stage of the case. In case of doubt, the court is obliged to decide the question of jurisdiction before the case is sentenced to full judgment. lies outside the jurisdiction of the court in question, the parties may be asked to seek the appropriate remedy in the proper court or the proper forum instead of proceeding with the whole matter and deciding the question of jurisdiction at a later stage. The term ‘coram non judice’ means an action by a court which has no jurisdiction,” said a nine-page judgment authored by Justice Muhammad. (FST) in a case related to an employee of the Cantonment Board.
According to the facts of the case, the respondent was served with a charge sheet dated 31 December 2015, which contained certain allegations of misconduct, including that he had sublet public housing. An inquiry committee was set up to submit a report. After the final indictment had been served, the respondent was sentenced on August 26, 2018 to a major penalty of exemption from service.
However, the respondent had previously preferred a departmental appeal on 15 September 2016, which remained undecided. As a result, he filed a service complaint with the FST, which was heard on 12 November 2018, with directions to the department to decide the pending departmental appeal. The department decided the appeal on 22 February 2019 and dismissed it. The respondent then filed another service appeal against the heavy fine imposed through the impugned judgment whereby the FST set aside the original and appellate orders and directed the competent authority to conduct a de novo inquiry in accordance with directions issued by the Director General.
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi, adjudicated two issues: whether employees of Cantonment Boards are civil servants and whether they can invoke the jurisdiction of the FST against disciplinary proceedings under the provisions of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, read with Article 212 of the Constitution.
The order stated that every civil servant is in the service of Pakistan, but every person in the service of Pakistan is not a civil servant. It further held that Section 2A cannot consider employees of autonomous or local bodies as civil servants because Parliament cannot by simple amendment of law extend the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution.
The court observed that after the repeal of Section 2A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, Cantonment Board employees cannot file service grievances regarding their terms and conditions of service before the FST. The appropriate legal forum to challenge violations of statutory service rules or departmental actions, including the imposition of sanctions or penalties, is the appropriate High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.
“This is the correct interpretation of law that where an employee is governed and regulated by statutory service rules, he can approach the High Court in its writ jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance,” the order concluded.
