This Constitutional petition has been filed to challenge the order, dated 16th September, 1981, of respondent No. 1 whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension with immediate effect.
2. The only grievance of the petitioner, as urged by his learned counsel, is that the impugned order of suspension is wholly without jurisdiction and coram non judIce, inasmuch as, the order, in question, is ultra vites of the provisions of Rule 6(1) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 193-5. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Muhammad Nawaz v.
Government of Punjab in support of his contention that if the order of suspension is wholly without jurisdiction and has not been passed by a competent authority, the Constitutional jurisdiction is not barred. He further submits that the impugned order of suspension is not relatable to the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner, inasmuch as, Rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975, provides certain pre-requisites which must exist before an order of suspension can be passed. In the Instant case, the conditions precedent laid down in Rule 6 (ibid) have not been satisfied and this being so, the order of suspension does not relate to the terms and conditions of the service of petitioner.
3. It is well established that the matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the appropriate Service Tribunal and the High Court cannot interfere with the order of suspension of the departmental authorities. Muhammad Siddiq Khokhar v. Engineer-in-Chief, G. H. Q. And another it was held that an appeal against an order of suspension is competently available before the appropriate Service Tribunal and that the order of.
Suspension is germane to the terms and conditions of service and a dispute with regard thereof falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal under clause (2) of Article 212 of the1 2 Constitution. This being so, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any force. The mere fact that the conditions laid down in Rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975, have allegedly, not been complied with, would not ipso facto render the order of suspension unrelatable to the terms and conditions of service.
4. In any case, whether the impugned order of suspension, in fact, is with jurisdiction, or without jurisdiction can well be decided by the appropriate Service Tribunal and merely because conditions laid down in Rule 6 ibid have not been allegedly complied with, would not oust the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal to deal with the matter in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
It is well established that if an appeal would lie against an order passed with jurisdiction before the appropriate Tribunal, an appeal would not be defeated on the ground that the order was without jurisdiction. Reference may be made to Muhammad As/am Bajwa v. Federation of Pakistan . This is a judgment of Division Bench of this Court which was approved by the Supreme Court in M.
Yamin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another . This authority is therefore, binding on me. The Full Bench of the Peshawar High Court consisting of five Honourable Judges, after examining the entire case-law, also took the view in Mian Amanul Malik v. N. W. F. P through the Chief Secretary that the matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal completely oust jurisdiction of all Courts, including the High Court even though, the orders of departmental authority are without jurisdiction or mala fide. I respectfully follow the same view.
5. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is not competent and is hereby dismissed in limine. 1981 PLC (C. S.) 194 1981 PLC (C.S.) 123 PLD 1974 Lah. 545 PLD 1980 SC 22 PLD 1981 Pesh. 1