| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 1410 2025 SLD 1410 = 2025 LHC 3760 |
W.P No.43029/2024
Anwaar Hussain, J.
Date of Hearing: 29.05.2025 Petitioner by: Mr. Muhammad Shahzad Hanif, Advocate, along with petitioner.
Respondents by: Mr. Muhammad Saad Bin Ghazi, Assistant Advocate General.
Muhammad Sarfraz
VERSUS
Secretary, Specialized Healthcare and Medical Education Department etc.
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 212
Law: Punjab Service Tribunals Act, (IX of 1974)
Section: 8
Law: Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974
Section: 15
SUMMARY "Jurisdiction Bar"
The point for determination before this Court is whether the High Court has jurisdiction and/or is obligated to decide the matter after having assumed jurisdiction as a stopgap arrangement due to non-functionality of the Punjab Service Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), upon the Tribunal becoming functional, keeping in view Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("the Constitution"). Held: Article 212(2) of the Constitution read with Section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 clearly envisaged that once the Tribunals are established, all proceedings pending before any Court will abate. The temporary non-functionality of the Tribunal indicates that it is not established and once the Tribunal assumes functioning, the proceedings before this Court will abate. The entertainment of a constitutional petition on account of non-functionality of the Tribunal is an exceptional remedy carved-out to ensure that a civil servant is not left remediless on account of non-appointment of its Chairman and/or members by the Government, however, this does not and should not so operate as to divest the Tribunal of its constitutionally vested jurisdiction and/or, conversely speaking, vest this Court with constitutionally divested jurisdiction. It is a stop-gap arrangement and such arrangement ought to dissipate upon the Tribunal becoming functional.
The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged the initiation of a second inquiry and a personal hearing notice, arguing that the issue was previously closed and that the Tribunal was non-functional at the time of filing the petition. Initially, the Court assumed jurisdiction due to the Tribunal's non-functionality. However, once the Tribunal became functional again, the core legal issue was whether the High Court could still hear the case given the constitutional bar under Article 212.