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 lawsuit that falls beyond the scope of its jurisdiction. It ruled that employees of Cantonment Boards are not civil servants; therefore, the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) lacks jurisdiction over their service matters, and such employees may approach the relevant high court for redress.
“It is the prime duty of the court to decide the question of jurisdiction first in cases where doubts are raised regarding jurisdiction, and in any such situation, it is the responsibility of the court to endeavor to resolve the issue of jurisdiction at an early stage of the proceedings. In case of any doubt, the court is duty-bound to determine the question of jurisdiction before commencing a full-fledged trial. If the case is found to be beyond the jurisdiction of that court, the parties may be directed to seek the appropriate remedy before the appropriate court or forum rather than proceeding with the entire case and deciding the issue of jurisdiction at a later stage. The expression ‘coram non judice’ means an act done by a court that has no jurisdiction,” said a nine-page judgment authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar while setting aside an order of the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) in a matter related to a Cantonment Board employee.
According to the facts of the case, the respondent was served with a charge sheet dated December 31, 2015, containing certain allegations of misconduct, including that he had sublet government accommodation. An inquiry committee was constituted to submit a report. After the final charge sheet was served, a major penalty of discharge from service was imposed upon the respondent on August 26, 2018.
However, the respondent had earlier preferred a departmental appeal on September 15, 2016, which remained undecided. Consequently, he filed a service appeal before the FST, which was disposed of on November 12, 2018, with directions to the department to decide the pending departmental appeal. The department decided the appeal on February 22, 2019, rejecting it. The respondent then filed another service appeal against the major penalty, which was decided through the impugned judgment whereby the FST set aside the original and appellate orders and directed the competent authority to hold a de novo inquiry in compliance with directions issued by the Director General.
A division bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi, adjudicated two questions: whether employees of Cantonment Boards are civil servants, and whether they can invoke the jurisdiction of the FST against disciplinary action under the provisions of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, read with Article 212 of the Constitution.
The order held 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 ruled that Section 2A cannot deem employees of autonomous or local bodies as civil servants because Parliament cannot, through a simple statutory amendment, expand the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution.
The court observed that after the discontinuation of Section 2A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, Cantonment Board employees cannot file service appeals relating to their terms and conditions of service before the FST. The appropriate legal forum for challenging violations of statutory service rules or departmental actions, including the imposition of penalties or punishments, is the relevant high court under Article 199 of the Constitution.
“This is the correct exposition of law that where an employee is governed and regulated by statutory service rules, he may approach the High Court in its writ jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance,” the order concluded.
