SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J. --- This single order shall decide the instant writ petition (Writ Petition No. 2090 of 2007), Writ Petition No. 2092 of 2007,-Writ Petition No. 2096 of 2007 and Writ Petition No. 2097 of 2007, emanating of the same legal proposition and common cause.
2. The petitioners were Chief Warrant Officers/Warrant Officers of the Pakistan Air Force and removed under Section 20(1) of the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953. The petitioners claim to have served the Pakistan Air Force for a period stretching over two decades with unblemished service record. Later it is alleged that the Flight - Intelligence Unit of P.A.F. Obtained confessional statements from the petitioners admitting that they had embezzled funds and received illegal gratification. This report was produced before the Board of Inquiry convened by the Chairman, P.A.C. Board, Kamra to determine their involvement or otherwise. However, the petitioners were not associated with the proceedings, pursuant thereto the petitioners were cautioned and asked if they want to make further statement, the petitioners responded and denied the allegations pleading that confession was obtained from them under coercion. It was not accepted, the matter proceeded and ultimately the petitioners were required to explain in writing as to why they should not be removed from service. The petitioners gave detailed explanations pleading innocence, the compelling circumstances for giving confessional statements and stated details of torture and minhandling, the explanations were declined and the petroners were removed from service, thus, the petitioner1 stood retired from service. The petitioners submitted mercy petitions before the Chief of Air Staff again pleading their innocence and referring to the services they rendered for the Pakistan Air Force, but the petitions were declined. Hence these petitions.
3. . The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that no proper inquiry was conducted nor the petitioners were associated with the. Same, Rule 191 (Boards of Inquiry) P.A.F. Act Rules, 1957, was violated, it specifically was pleaded that the petitioners were Chief Warrant Officers/Warrant Officers - in the P.A.F. And, therefore, could not be dealt with under Section 20(1) of the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953. According to this rule the power of -dismissal, removal or reduction in rank can be exercised personally by the Chief of the Air Staff or the Deputy Chief of the Air Staff, but the same cannot be delegated to any other officer, further Section 20(1) of the P.A.F. Act, 1953, is inapplicable to the petitioners. Reference was made to Muhammad Tariq Khan v. Khawaja Muhammad Jawad Asami and others (2007 S.C.M.R. 818), Pakistan v. Malik Ghulam Mustafa Khar (P.L.D. 1989 S.C. 26) and Abdul Majeed Zafar and others Versus Governor of the. Punjab through Chief Secretary and others (2007 S.C.M.R. 330).
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents controverted the assertions and contended that the matter requires determination through inquiry and cannot, therefore, be adjudicated in the Constitutional jurisdiction, proper procedure in this contest has already been followed and, therefore, the same cannot now be made subject-matter of a de novo inquiry. Further Article 199(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, bars the jurisdiction of this Court, specifically to entertain Constitutional petition', in respect of members of the Armed Forces and lastly the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953, were fully applicable to the case, of the petitioners.
5. Heard.
6. The parties to the dispute have confined,rtheir argument only to the interpretation of Section 20(1) of the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953, according to the petitioners the same is inapplicable to the petitioners as they are Chief Warrants Officers/Warrant Officers and included in the definition of officer, therefore, the orders passed. Against them are manifestly illegal and coram non judice, thus, the provisions of Article 199(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, can be invoked for their rescue. Before proceeding further it would be advantageous to reproduce Section 20 of the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953, which reads:---
20. Dismissal, removal or reduction by Chief of the Air Staff or other officers:- (1) The Chief of the Air Staff or any officer empowered in this behalf under the rules may at any time dismiss or remove from the service any person subject to ,this Act, other than an officer.
(2) The Chief of the Air Staff or any officer empowered in this behalf under the rules may reduce to a lower grade, or to a lower rank or to the ranks, any non-commissioned officer.
(3) The Chief of the Air Staff or any officer empowered in this behalf under the rules may reduce to a lower class in the ranks any airman other than a non-commissioned officer.
(4) The commanding officer of an acting noncommissioned officer may order him to revert to his substantive rank as a non-commissioned officer, or if he has no substantive rank, to the ranks.
(5) On active service, an officer commanding the air forces in the field may reduce to a lower rank or to the ranks any non-commissioned officer under his command.
(6) The exercise of any powers under this section shall be subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, and the rules and regulations made thereunder.
The language couched in Section 20, therefore, is clear that the Chief of Air Staff or any ctelegatee by him can exercise the powers to dismiss or remove from service any person -subject to this Act other than an officer, Section 2(xxiv) defines "officer" as under:- "Officer" means a person commissioned, gazetted or in the pay as an officer in the Air Force and includes:--
(i) an officer of the Pakistan Air. Force Volunteer Reserve who is for the time being subject to this Act; and
(ii) an officer of the Pakistan Army or the Pakistan Navy when serving under the prescribed conditions, but does not include a junior Commissioned Officer, Warrant Officer, Petty Officer or non- commissioned officer"
It; therefore, manifestly clear that a Warrant Officer is not included in the definition of an officer.
Therefore, the provisions of Section 20(1) permit the Chief of the Air Staff or any person empowered by him to dismiss or remove from service the petitioners, as the petitioners do not fall within the definition of officer under. The Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953. Therefore, their removal from service was neither illegal nor contrary to, law. In these circumstances the embargo contained in Article 199(3) of the Constitution of the. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is absolute qua the present matter. The proposition in hand is distinguishable from the precedents referred to as no illegality in law was committed, 'a proper inquiry was held and it is floating on record that petitioners put across their view point. Therefore, these petitions are not maintainable, hence dismissed.