' MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN (MEMBER).-The factual position of the case as averred in the memo. Of appeal and stated during the course of his arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant before us, briefly and relevantly speaking, is that the appellant had entered into the service of the Federal Government in October, 1972 having been appointed as Officer on Special DutylEx-Officio Joint Secretary, to the Federal Government in the Ministry of Education. Thereafter, in August, 1973 he was promoted to the post of Additional Secretary in Grade 21 of the Secretariat Group. Vide notification dated 30th February, 1978, he was appointed as Member, Service Tribunal Islamabad in Grade-21 "with immediate effect and until further orders". About three years thereafter, he was transferred and appointed as Officer on Special Duty in the Establishment Division, vide notification dated the 19th February, 1981 and vide a subsequent notification dated the 9th March, 1981, it was notified that in exercise of the powers conferred under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 the competent authority was pleased to remove the appellant, a Grade-21 Officer of the Secretariat Group, from Service. The appellant represented against the impugned orders, to the President of Pakistan vide a representation dated 12th March, 1981. As he did not receive any reply to his said representation even on the expiry of three months, he filed the present appeal praying for the impugned order to be declared to be illegal, ultra vires, void and inoperative and that the appellant continue to be a Member of the Service Tribunal, Islamabad.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at great length. He mainly emphasized that the office of the Member Service Tribunal is a statutory a ointment governed by the Service Tribunals Act and the is made thereunder, therefore, the appellant could neither be transferred nor otherwise be removed from the office of the Member, Service Tribunal, except by following the procedure laid down in the Service Tribunals Act or the rules framed thereunder, and since there are no rules framed under the Service Tribunals Act, nor the tenure of a Member is fixed thereunder, the tenure of the Member Service Tribunal is indefinite and he could not be transferred or removed from his office. The only available legal manner whereby a Member could cease to be a Member is his resignation as provided under subsection (5) of section 3 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
3. The learned counsel went on to argue that section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, could not be applied for removal from service of the appellant, the holder of a statutory appointment, who could not legally be removed except in accordance with the provisions of the Service Tribunals Act or the Constitution. Reliance was placed on PLJ 1974 Lah.
508. The counsel further submitted that the decision to remove the appellant was taken on the basis of malicious and factually wrong recommendations of a Review Board, constituted to examine the record of service of certain civil servants as the appellant bad come to know that it was brought to the notice of the President of Pakistan by the said Review Board that the appellant was holding a post equivalent to Grade-19, when, in 1972, he was appointed to Grade-20 and again was promoted to Grade-21 in 1973, while according to the appellant, he, previous to his entry into Government service in 1972, had been holding a post which was comparable in every respect' to a Grade-21 post under the Federal Government. It was also suggested by the learned counsel that the entire proceedings were held by the Review Board and the Establishment Division at a time when the appellant was holding a statutory appointment and in which capacity he was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Review Board and the Establishment Division. Concluding, the learned counsel submitted that the transfer of the appellant from the Office of Member, Service Tribunal, the proceedings of the Review Board and the impugned decision of the President removing him from service are Coram nonjudice, ultra vires and of no legal effect.
4. The above contentions are manifestly misconceived and fallacious. The import of the construction of the provisions of the Service Tribunals Act and the Constitution suggested by the learned counsel would be that the Chairman or a Member of the Service Tribunal can never be either transferred or removed from service or even retired. This position would obviously lead to unreasonableness, anomaly and absurdity, which the Courts and the Tribunals are always required to avoid. It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of Statutes that where the provisions of a Statute do apparently give rise to an anomalous or unnatural state of affairs, it must be given a working effect without extending the operation of inference or imagination further than is necessary for its purpose. The notification of the appellant's appointment as Member, Service Tribunal was subject to any further order. This was indeed a condition of his appointment determined under subsection
(4) of section 3 of the Service Tribunals Act. Also by becoming a Member of the Service Tribunal, the appellant had not, by any stretch of imagination, ceased to be a civil servant, rather Civil Servants Act, 1973 continued to apply with full force to the appellant. Therefore, the provisions of section 12-A cool be legally and competently invoked for removal of the appellant from service as he was appointed as Civil Servant during the period specific in the said section 12-A. The irresistible conclusion, therefore, would that it was well within the competence of the President to transfer the appellant from the post of the Member Service Tribunal as well as to remove him from service.
5. The petitioner in the case reported in PLJ 1978 Lah. 508, relied upon by the learned counsel was appointed on a tenure post of Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore for a fixed period of four years while the appointment of the appellant as Member, Service Tribunal was not made for any fixed period but only till further orders. Thus the factual position of that case is quite different from the case of the appellant. Therefore, the said ruling is not applicable to the case of the appellant.
6. On the factual plane, the contention of the appellant alleging that the premises on which the recommendation of the Review Board was based were wrong is also not substantiated. We have noticed that according to para. 1-A(v) of the memo of appeal, previous to his appointment in the Federal Government, the appellant was holding the post of Senior Professor and Dean of the Engineering Faculty of the University of Sind with a maximum of the pay scale of Rs, 2,000 per month exclusive of allowance amounting to Rs, 500. Incidently, at that time the maximum scale of pay of a Deputy Secretary to the Federal Government (Grade-19) was also Rs, 2,200 exclusive of the allowances. It is, therefore. Abundantly clear that previous to his appointment in the Federal Government, the appellant was holding a post equivalent to the post of Deputy Secretary to the Federal Government only, and it is found to be an absolutely incorrect assertion that he was holding a post comparable to a Grade-21 post which carried a pay scale of Rs, 2,750 exclusive of senior post and other allowances.
7. In view of the foregoing, we have no option but to conclude that the transfer of the appellant from the post of Member, Service Tribunal as well as his removal from service under section 12-A were ordered by the competent authority in bona fide and lawful exercise of the powers legally vested in it. The impugned orders are unassailable. Accordingly, the appeal having no merits, is dismissed in limine.