838/2014 Const. P. Imran Ahmed Ansari (Petitioner) V/S Fed. Of Pakistan and ors (Respondent)

Sindh High Court2020

Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)

Share on WhatsApp
838/2014 Const. P. Imran Ahmed Ansari (Petitioner) V/S Fed. Of Pakistan and ors (Respondent) Sindh High Court Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author) Order Date: 22-JAN-20 1. Since the Petitioners service was terminated under Rule 8(b)(1) of the DHA Service Rules, which rule has since been declared un-constitutional by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Itrat Sajjad (2017 SCMR 2010), the only point left for our consideration is whether the effect of the declaration in Itrat Sajjad on the case of the Petitioner can be addressed by us in writ jurisdiction. 2. It had been settled by a 5 member Bench of the Supreme Court in DHA v. Jawaid Ahmed (2013 SCMR 1707) that applying the function test, the DHA is a person to whom a writ can issue under Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution of Pakistan. But then, moving to a question distinct, viz. whether the employee of a statutory authority can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to enforce service rules of the statutory authority, it was held that where service rules were non-statutory, those cannot normally be enforced in writ jurisdiction for such rules attract the principle of master and servant; but at the same time it was also held that where action of a statutory authority in a service matter is in violation of principles of natural justice, such action can be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. Itrat Sajjad reiterates the same principles, and while it was concluded that the DHA Service Rules are non-statutory and thus not enforceable ordinarily by way of a writ petition, the judgment went on to hold that since Rule 8(b)(1) of the DHA Service Rules violated the principle of natural justice, the case fell within the recognized exception that a writ can issue where the action of a statutory authority in a service matter is violative of the principle of natural justice. For the same reason, this petition, to the extent it assails termination issued under the same Rule 8(b)(1) of the DHA Service Rules, is also maintainable.
Full judgment text for this case is not yet available on Pakistan Law Reports. Check the official Sindh High Court case law portal for the complete order.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error, let us know.

Related judgments

Red Notices against Foreign National Proclaimed Offender

PLJ 2024 Karachi 138 (DB) · Sindh High Court · 2024

Judgment on Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act 2012

PLJ 2023 Karachi 124 (DB) · Sindh High Court · 2023

Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act 2013 explained in a Judgment

PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 154 · Sindh High Court · 2022

Article 140- Cross Examination of a Witness

PLJ 2020 · Sindh High Court · 2020

Re-Examination is more important than Examination in Chief

PLJ 2020 · Sindh High Court · 2020