Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973

Section: 212(2), 199

 Case Summary

1. Facts of the Case

• The petitioner is an employee of Pakistan Museum of Natural History, Pakistan Science Foundation, Ministry of Science & Technology, Islamabad, posted on deputation as Curator, Bahawalpur Zoo.
• He was asked to explain why he failed to report the death of 330 chicks of different species.
• After receiving his explanation, the Borrowing Organization placed him under 90 days' suspension under Section 6 of PEEDA Act, 2006 through order dated 16.08.2026.
• The petitioner challenged the suspension before the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.
• His main argument was that, being a deputationist, the Borrowing Organization was required to obtain prior approval of the Lending Organization under Section 15(1)(a) & (b) PEEDA before suspending him.

2. Main Legal Issues

1. Does Section 15 PEEDA require prior approval of the Lending Organization before a deputationist is suspended under Section 6?
2. Is a suspension order a penalty/final order which can immediately be challenged through constitutional jurisdiction?
3. Was the writ petition maintainable against an interim suspension order?

Court's Key Findings

A. No prior approval was required for suspension under Section 6

This was the most important finding.

The Court harmoniously interpreted Sections 6 and 15 and held:

• Section 6 independently authorizes suspension for 90 days.
• Section 6 contains no requirement of prior approval from the Lending Organization.
• Section 15 does not make the suspension power under Section 6 subject to prior approval.
• The first proviso to Section 15 requires the Borrowing Organization to inform the Lending Organization about the circumstances leading to suspension.
• The word “forthwith” does not necessarily mean instantly; it means with reasonable celerity/without unnecessary delay.

B. Difference between the two provisos of Section 15

The Court made an important distinction: