1. ' ABDUL RAHMAN FARUQ PIRZADA, J.---By this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to conduct detailed inquiry about cause of death of petitioner's son SWR Rasheed Ahmed No,1085527 serving in Pakistan Army and take proper legal action against any person found responsible for the alleged incident, and also for directing the respondents to release a family pension and all other benefits available, to petitioners family.
2. ' Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's son Rasheed was recruited vide SWR 1085527 on 27-8-2002. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed that his son had expired during the Army exercises on 12-9-2003. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the petitioner's son, by virtue of having served in Pakistan Army, was entitled to pensioner benefits, and after his death, his family members are entitled the same pensionary benefits, but the respondents have declined to extend any such benefits. Learned counsel has further contended that appropriate inquiry was not conducted by the respondents in respect of the death of petitioners son, and the petitioners were simply informed that the respondents, after conducting an inquiry, had arrived at the conclusion that the petitioners son had committed suicide due to failure in a love affair. Learned counsel, in support of his above submission, has placed reliance on the case of Federation of Pakistan and others v. Raja Muhammad Ishaque Qamar and another reported as PLD 2007 Supreme Court 498.
3. ' Learned Federal counsel, on the other hand, has argued that the petition is not maintainable in view of Article 199(3) read with Article 8(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. He has stated that the petitioner's son Rasheed Ahmed had absented himself without leave from his unit and committed suicide by jumping into the deep waters of Bahawal Canal on 12-9-2003. After hectic efforts, his dead body was recovered from the canal, and as per his death certificate issued by CMH Bahawalpur, the cause of death was opined as "Drowning".
4. ' The Parawise comments by respondents Nos.1 to 3 were also placed on record, in which it has been clearly stated that a proper Court of inquiry was conducted to enquire into circumstances of the death of deceased Rasheed Ahmed. As a result of Court of inquiry, it was established that the individual committed suicide due to a broken love affair. It was found during the inquiry that a number of individuals present nearby the bridge, wherefrom the deceased jumped into the Canal, had seen him jumping, but could not stop him as there was no sufficient time for restraining him.
5. However, before jumping into the Canal, the deceased tried to hand over a chit to one Muhammad Arif, but the latter refused to receive the same chit and rushed in utter panic to call the people present nearby so that they could rescue the deceased and stop him from committing suicide.
6. ' It has also been stated in the comments that the petitioner himself had appeared before the said Court of inquiry and deposed that before joining the Army, deceased was in love with some girl and he had himself proposed her for the deceased, but her parents refused to give the hand of said girl in marriage to petitioner's son. With regard to the claim of pensionary benefits for petitioner's family, it has been stated by respondents Nos.1 to 3 that on 17-2-2005, the competent authority, in response to an application by Mst. Parveen Akhtar, the mother of deceased, forwarded the complete case along with the relevant documents to the Officer of the Controller Military Pension (CMP) Lahore for consideration, who regretted to entertain the same in the light of Rule 17(a), Pension Regulation, Volume-1, 1999.
7. ' On the point of maintainability of petition, learned Federal counsel placed reliance on the cases reported as PLD 2001 Supreme Court 549 and PLD 1996 Supreme Court 632. Besides, the respondents have submitted the list of several petitions involving similar legal point, which were dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as other superior Courts, due to the bar of jurisdiction under the Constitution.
8. ' We have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and learned Federal Counsel, and have also perused the parawise comments along with list of cases, which are stated to have been decided by honourable apex Court and other Superior Courts.
9. Admittedly, the petitioner's son served in Army for total period of about 13 months. First, learned counsel for petitioner has not been able to establish as to how the petitioner's son was entitled to any pensionary benefits, in view of the short span of his service. Secondly, it has been categorically contended by the respondents that the claim of pensionary benefits by the petitioner's family was regretted to be entertained in the light of provisions of Rule 17(a), Pension Regulation, Volume, 1, 1999.
10. ' So far as the prayer of petitioner for a proper inquiry to be conducted by the Army Authorities in respect of the cause of death of petitioner's son is concerned, it has been clearly brought forth on record that a proper Court of Inquiry was conducted, wherein it was established that deceased Rasheed Ahmed committed suicide due to a broken love affair. It is significant to note that the petitioner himself had also appeared before the Court of inquiry, and had deposed that before joining the Army, the deceased was in love with a girl and had proposed her for marriage, but the latter's parents had refused to give the hand of girl in marriage to petitioner's son. It has also been stated that there were certain eye-witnesses, who had seen the petitioner's son while jumping into the Canal in order to commit suicide. As stated, deceased Rasheed Ahmed had absented himself from duty without leave on 11-9-2003, and later he committed suicide on 12-9-2003.
11. ' In view of the above categorical statement made by the respondents, we are inclined to hold that a proper and detailed Court of Inquiry was conducted by the respondents, with regard to the death of deceased Rasheed Ahmed, whereafter proper findings were given by the said Court of Inquiry in the light of evidence, which was brought on record.
12. ' On the point of maintainability of this petition, for the sake of convenience, the provisions of Article 199 (3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan maybe reproduced as under:-- "199. Jurisdiction of High Court---(1) Subject to the Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law,-- (a).......................................................................
13. (i)........................................................................
14. (ii).......................................................................
15. (b).............................................
16. (i)........................................................................
17. (ii).......................................................................
18. (c).......................................................................
19. (2).......................................................................
(3) An order shall not be made under clause (1) on application made by or in relation to a person who is a member of the Armed Forces of Pakistan, or who is for the time being subject to any law relating to any of those Forces, in respect of his terms and conditions of service, in respect of any matter arising out of his service, or in respect of any action taken in relation to him as a member of the Armed Forces of Pakistan or as a person subject to such law.
20. (4)............................................................
21. (a)............................................................
22. (b)............................................................
23. (i).............................................................
24. (ii)............................................................
25. (4A).........................................................
26. (4B).........................................................
27. (5)............................................................
28. (a)............................................................
29. (b)............................................................
30. ' It may also be pertinent to make a reference to the provisions of Article 8(3) of the Constitution, which are reproduced as under:-- "8. Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights to be void.-(1)...
31. (2).......
(3) The provisions of this Article shall not apply to.
(a) Any law relating to members of the Armed Forces, or of the police or of such other forces as are charged with the maintenance of public order, for the purpose of ensuring the proper discharge of their duties or the maintenance of discipline among them; or (b).....................................................
32. (i).......................................................
33. (ii)......................................................
34. (4).....................................................
35. (5).....................................................
36. ' Respectfully, the reference may be made to the case of Ex-Lt.-Col. Anwar Aziz (PA-7122) v.
37. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and two others (PLD 2001 S.C. 549), wherein it was laid down that the petitioner had candidly admitted the jurisdiction of Field General Court Martial, and voluntarily he surrendered to its jurisdiction and fully contested the proceedings; it was after exhausting the remedies available to him according to the Pakistan Army Act, that he resorted to the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court without any legal justification. In the same authority of law it was further laid down as under:-- "This Court can interfere only in extraordinary cases involving question of jurisdiction defect when proceedings before that forum become coram non judice or mala fide. The matters relating to the Members of the Armed Forces or who for the time being are subject to any law relating to any of these Forces in respect of terms and conditions of service or in respect of any action taken in relation to him as Member of Armed Forces or as a person subject to such law, is barred by Article 199 (3) of the Constitution. Article 8(3) of the Constitution also envisages that the provisions of this Article shall not apply to any law relating to members of the Armed Forces, or of the Police or of such other forces as are charged with the maintenance of public order, for the purpose of ensuring the proper discharge of their duties or the maintenance of discipline among them. According to section 133(3)(B) of the Act the decision of the Court of appeal is final and can not be called in question before any Court or Authority whatsoever."
38. ' However, the honourable apex Court in the same ruling enunciated the extraordinary circumstances when the High Court, under Article 199(3) of the Constitution, can interfere in cases of like nature as under: -- "By now it is well-settled principle of law that the High Court under Article 199 (3) of the Constitution can examine the cases falling within three categories, namely, where impugned order/judgment, is mala fide, or without jurisdiction or coram non judice."
39. ' We have also respectfully gone through the case law as reported in PLD 2007 Supreme Court 498, which was relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner. While having profound regards for the honourable apex Court, we are of the humble opinion that the facts of present case are distinguishable from the facts in the cited authority of law. Moreover, it has been clearly laid down in the same ruling that any such matter involving the jurisdiction of Military Court, is amenable to the jurisdiction of superior Courts, only where any such action has been found to be without jurisdiction or coram non judice or mala fide.
40. In the present case, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to establish any one of the above mentioned three ingredients, for the purpose of invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court viz, the action being without jurisdiction, or coram non judice or mala fide.
41. In our view a proper inquiry was held by the Army Authorities, and the said proceedings could neither be termed as without jurisdiction or coram non judice or mala fide.
42. ' In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, and while placing implicit reliance on the above cited authorities of law, as laid down by honourable apex Court, we do not find any merits in the present petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.