Case Details

Citation(s)
1960 SLG 285 1960 SLD 285 1960 PLD 295
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1960, decided on 29th April, 1960.
MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C.J., M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS, AMIRUDDIN AHMAD AND S. A. RAHMAN, JJ
Abdul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Attorney for Appellant. Jamil Hussain Rizvi, Advocate-General West Pakistan, (Iftikharul Haq Khan, Advoeate Supreme Court with him), instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for
Respondent.

FAZLEHAQ, ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL, WEST PAKISTAN

VS

THE STATE--Respondent

Law:

Section:

(a) High Court Judge-Suspended-No rules in existence re furnishing of charge relinquishment report with bill for monthly allowance during period of suspension-Rules governing Secretary to Government of Province may be resorted to under High Court Judges Order, 1937, para. 26-Punjab Financial Rules, Vol. I, r. 6.2 whether applicable. On the question whether it was necessary to furnish a charge relinquishment report along with a bill for monthly allowance, during period of suspension of a High Court Judge Held, that there were no rules of specific application, but paragraph 26 of the High Court Judges Order, 1937, provided that in matters where that Order itself was silent the conditions of service of a Judge should be determined by the rules for the time being applicable to a civil servant of the State holding the rank of Secretary to the Government of a Province, and so, with regard to this matter the rules applicable to a Secretary would have to be applied. [In the case in question, the Accountant-General's office had maintained that. a relinquishment report was necessary under rule 6.2, Punjab Financial Rules, Vol. I, but the High Court had held that neither rule 6.2 nor para. 67, Audit Manual made it necessary for a report to be "signed". So the matter remained inconclusive. It was disposed of by the Supreme Court as set out above]. (b) Writ-Suo motu proceedings, High Court not empowered to initiate-Jurisdiction extraordinary-Exercisable on motion by party whose rights have been denied-High Court cannot be judge of own cause where that Court as a whole considers itself aggrieved­--Suo motu initiation-Misconceived and void-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170. A High Court Judge was suspended with effect from 24th November, 1958. His pay bill sent by the High Court for the period 1st to 23rd November 1958 was, after some exchange of correspondence between the Registrar and the Accountant-General's office, passed only "provisionally" and the latter officer insisted on a charge relinquishment report being furnished with the bill before it could be normally passed. A subsequent bill was similarly dealt with, whereupon the High Court directed notice to be…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492