Police officers walk past Pakistan’s Supreme Court building, in Islamabad, Pakistan, April 6, 2022. REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has held that no court has the authority to decide a claim that falls outside the scope of its jurisdiction. It provided that the employees of the Cantonment Boards are not public officials; Therefore, the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) lacks jurisdiction over their service matters and such employees can approach the appropriate high court for redress.
“It is the primary duty of the court to first decide the question of jurisdiction in cases where questions of jurisdiction are raised, and in any such situation, it is the responsibility of the court to endeavor to resolve the question of jurisdiction at an early stage of the proceedings. In case of any doubt, the court is required 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 appropriate relief before the appropriate court or forum instead of in instead of continuing with the entire case and deciding the question of jurisdiction at a later stage. The expression ‘coram non judice’ means an act done by a court which has no jurisdiction,” reads a nine-page judgment written by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar while setting aside an order of the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) in a matter involving a Cantonment Board employee.
According to the facts of the case, the defendant was served with a charge sheet dated December 31, 2015, which contained certain allegations of misconduct, including that he had sublet government accommodation. A commission of inquiry was formed to present a report. After the final charge sheet was submitted, a major penalty of discharge from service was imposed on 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 an appeal for protection before the FST, which was resolved on November 12, 2018, with instructions to the department to decide the pending departmental appeal. The department resolved the appeal on February 22, 2019, dismissing it. The respondent then filed another service appeal against the major penalty, which was decided by an impugned judgment whereby the FST set aside the original and appeal orders and ordered the competent authority to conduct a de novo investigation in compliance with the directions issued by the Director General.
A division bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi, resolved two issues: whether employees of cantonment boards are public servants and whether they can invoke the jurisdiction of the FST against disciplinary action under the provisions of the Service Courts Act, 1973, read with Article 212 of the Constitution.
The order held that every public servant is in the service of Pakistan, but every person in the service of Pakistan is not a public servant. It further ruled that Section 2A cannot treat employees of autonomous or local bodies as public servants because Parliament cannot, by a simple statutory amendment, extend constitutional jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution.
The court observed that after the discontinuation of Section 2A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, employees of the Cantonment Board cannot file service appeals relating to their terms and conditions of service before the FST. The appropriate legal forum to challenge violations of legal service standards or departmental actions, including imposition of penalties or punishments, is the relevant high court under Article 199 of the Constitution.
“This is the correct exposition of the law that where an employee is governed and regulated by statutory service standards, he can approach the High Court in its judicial jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance,” the order concluded.
