' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This appeal by leave of this Court is directed against the order of the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 5-7-1979 in Appeal No, 55(R) of 1978.
2. The relevant facts are that the respondent, Dr. Safdar Mahmood, was appointed as an Income- tax Officer in 1969 after having successfully competed in the examination held by the Public Service Commission in 1966 for recruitment to the Central Superior Service and completing the requisite training. He belonged to the 1967 batch of the successful competitions. In 1974, he was in Grade 18 in the Income-tax Department when, so far as his service career is concerned, some important events occurred. In this year, his doctoral thesis was approved and he was conferred the Ph. D.
Degree in the Political Science by the Punjab University. In the same year, on 2-3-1974, to be exact, he was appointed to officiate as Joint Director in the Bureau of National Research and Reference-a Grade 19 post-on ad hoc basis. This appointment was made by a Selection Board of the aforesaid Ministry after an interview and a question arose as to what was the nature of this appointment. The Ministry of Information, under whose administrative control the Bureau of National Research and Reference was functioning, accordingly, made a reference on 25th April, 1974 to the Establishment Division, which returned the following answer The case of Mr. Safdar Mahmood is not of normal promotion. This is in nature of lateral entry. The case may, therefore, be dealt with on this basis."
' On 13-12-1975, the respondent was transferred to the Intelligence Bureau and posted in the Research Cell as Deputy Director, in the same grade (viz. Grade 19). Sometimes- thereafter, while he was still working in the said position, the Ministry of Religious Affairs advertised a post of Director General, Research and Reference-which is a post in Grade 20. The respondent applied for the said post and was found to be the most suitable candidate for it. The Central Selection Board in its meeting held on 4-1-1977 cleared him for Grade 20 on an ad hoc basis. The Intelligence Bureau, however, was not prepared to relieve him because on account of his high academic qualifications and research experience he was considered most suitable for its work. However, with a view to seeing that he did not suffer for this, it was decided to approach the Establishment Department for his promotion to Grade 20 in the Intelligence Bureau. The proposal of his promotion to Grade 20 was placed before the Minister of Establishment and approved by him on 28-2-1977. As much of the argument has turned on the nature of this promotion, the terms of the proposal and its approval are reproduced below :- "46. A proposal received from the Ministry of Religious Affairs for the appointment of Dr. Safdar Mahmood, presently Deputy Director (Research), Intelligence Bureau in Grade 19 plus special pay of Rs, 275, as Director, Research and Reference in Grade 20 in that Ministry was placed before the Central Selection Board at its meeting held on 4-1-1977. Dr. Safdar Mahmood belongs originally to the Income-tax Group, 1967. In view of his high academic qualifications and research experience, he was appointed with the approval of the Prime Minister as Joint Director, Grade 19, on an ad hoc basis, in the Bureau of National Research and Reference under the Information and Broadcasting Division with effect from 31-3-1974. Later, he was transferred to the Intelligence Bureau in Grade 19.
The Board, in view of the high academic qualifications of Dr. Safdar Mahmood and his long experience in the field of Research and Journalism as well as good service record, cleared him for promotion to Grade 20.
47. The Intelligence Bureau are, however, not prepared to relieve him and have instead requested for the retention in that Bureau, where he is assigned an important job. It is proposed that he may be promoted to Grade 20 and kept in the Intelligence Bureau at least for the time being.
48. Submitted for approval of the Minister of State for Establishment.
(Sd.) (K. Mahmood), Special Secretary Ministry of State for Establishment
49. Approved.
(Sd.) x x x x 28/2"
3. The Intelligence Bureau was informed by the Cabinet Division (Establishment Division), Rawalpindi vide its letter dated 4-3-1977 that the Minister had accorded an approval to the promotion of the respondent to Grade 20 and to his being retained in the Intelligence Bureau for the present. The formal notification notifying the assumption of charge by the respondent of the office of the Joint Director (Grade 20) with effect from the afternoon of 4-4-1974 "until further orders" was issued on 19-4-1977.
4. The fortunes of the respondent began to waver after the change-over on 5-7-1977. On 4-8-1977, Mr. Kamar Alam, a Senior Police Officer, as Chairman of the Special Inquiry Team looking into the affairs of the Intelligence Bureau, Islamabad, issued a questionnaire to the respondent requiring him to furnish information with respect to several matters concerning the work of the Research Cell which he was heading. A detailed reply was submitted but apparently did not satisfy the authorities concerned. Accordingly, the respondent was reverted back to the Central Board of Revenue for appointment in the Income-tax Group in his own grade (i,e, Grade 19) vide notification issued on 1-1-1978. The text of the notification is reproduced below :- "NOTIFICATION No, 30/2/76-A.I.-The services of Dr. Safdar Mahmood an officer of Grade 19 (acting charge basis) in the Income-tax Group, presently employed as Joint Director Incharge of Research and Reference Section, Intelligence Bureau, are replaced at the disposal of the Central Board of Revenue for appointment in the Income-tax Group, in his own grade in that group, with immediate effect."
5. The respondent made a representation to the Chief Martial Law Administrator on 16-1-1978 against this reversion from Grade 20 to Grade 19. Nothing was heard in response to this representation. Instead, however, on 6-4-1978 he received a show-cause notice from the Chairman, Central Board of Revenue charging him with misconduct in relation to his conduct in the Intelligence Bureau as Incharge of the Research Cell and asked to show-cause why the major penalty of dismissal should not be imposed upon him.
6. The respondent controverted the charges levelled in the show-cause notice and was ultimately exonerated vide letter dated 24-6-1978 sent to him, the relevant part of which is reproduced hereunder :- "Subject :-Disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Safdar Mahmood, Deputy Director of Inspection (Taxes).
I am directed to refer to the above subject and to inform ;hat your case has been considered and the Competent Authority has exonerated you from the charges which were conveyed to you through show-cause notice vide Board's Letter No. 1/CH/CBR/78, dated the 6th April, 1978. The orders restricting you to your present grade will, however, stand."
7. Since the orders restricting him to Grade 19 were maintained the respondent, therefore, filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, to challenge the aforesaid notification dated 1-1- 1978 reverting him from the post of Joint Director, Intelligence Bureau, Government of Pakistan (Grade 20) to his parent Department in Grade 19.
8. Before the Service Tribunal two questions were agitated, namely, whether the respondent's promotion to Grade 20 was on ad hoc or temporary Or officiating basis and, therefore, he could be reverted to Grade 19 without notice under section 12 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and, secondly, whether the action in reverting him to the lower grade was not on account of the charges of misconduct which had been levelled against him and as such the reversion was not covered by section 12 having been ordered in fact as a measure of punishment.
9. The Service Tribunal held that the respondent was neither "temporary" nor "ad hoc" nor "officiating" and that his appointment to Grade 20 post was a regular appointment for an indefinite period, though not a permanent appointment. The Tribunal also held that the action taken against the respondent in reverting him to the lower post was, in fact, on account of the charges levelled against him of which he was exonerated and, consequently, section 12 of the Civil Servants Act was not available in the circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the appeal of the respondent before the Service Tribunal was allowed and a direction issued that the respondent shall be deemed to continue in Grade 20 from the date of his reversion and entitled to all consequential benefits. Hence the present appeal.
10. The position taken before the Service Tribunal which was strongly reiterated before us is that the order of reversion dated 1-1-1978 was passed under .The provisions of section 12 of the Civil Servants Act. Its terms may, therefore, usefully be reproduced hereunder :- "S.
12. A civil servant appointed to a higher post or grade on ad hoc or a temporary or officiating basis shall be liable to reversion to a lower post or grade without notice."
' The order of reversion dated 1-1-1978 and impugned before the Service Tribunal has already been reproduced in para. 4 above. The main question debated before the Service Tribunal was whether the notification dated 19-4-1977 appointing the respondent to a Grade 20 post was on an ad hoc or temporary or officiating basis and if so, he could, in terms of section 12, ibid, be reverted to a lower post or grade without notice. It would, therefore, be appropriate to reproduce the text of the notification dated 19.4-1977 hereunder :- "Notification No, 71075(253).-On his promotion in Grade 20, Dr. Safdar Mahmood relinquished charge of the office of Deputy Director (Grade 19) with effect from the afternoon of 3rd March, 1977 and assumed charge of the office of Joint Director (Grade 20) with effect from the forenoon of 4th March, 1977 until further orders, against the upgraded post of Deputy Director (Grade 19) to that of Joint Director (Grade 20) vide Intelligence Bureau Letter No. 1/Budget/76(10), dated 7th April, 1977."
11. Before the Tribunal, it was emphasised on behalf of the appellant herein that the words until further orders" had been used in the notification aforementioned and that these words showed that the intention was to appoint the respondent temporarily for such period as his services may be required. Reliance, on behalf of the appellant herein, was also placed on the summary sent to the Minister of State for Establishment (relevant part whereof has been reproduced in para. 3 above), wherein after the selection of the respondent in Grade 20 in the Ministry of Religious Affairs it was recommended that the respondent may be allowed to continue in the Intelligence Bureau in Grade 20 "at least for the time being". The contention was that as this summary had been approved by the Minister Incharge the competent authority intended to make the appointment of the respondent in Grade 20 for the time being only and, therefore, he could not claim that his appointment was not temporary.
12. The Tribunal, so far as the latter contention is concerned, rejected it on the reasoning that as the promotion of the respondent to Grade 20 had been duly approved by the Selection Board and that there was nothing to show that this promotion was on a temporary basis, the promotion of the respondent in Grade 20 was for an indefinite period and that it was only his retention in the Intelligence Bureau which was for the time being. As for the first mentioned plea that the words "until further orders" used in the notification of 19-4-1977 indicated that the services of the respondent were only temporary, as they were to last only for as such period as they might be required, it was held, on the strength of the Establishment Division's 0. M. No, 3/27/22-EV dated 10-1- 1960 that the expression "until further ,orders" would not make the employment as temporary or officiating and that the word "officiating" had to be used of employment was intended to be terminated at the sweet will of the appointing authority. Accordingly, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal was that the notification dated 19-4-1977, whereby the respondent was appointed in Grade 20 'showed that although his appointment as Joint Director was "until further orders, his promotion to that grade was neither temporary nor officiating nor ad hoc. In other words, although the respondent was intended to hold the post in the Intelligence Bureau until further orders but his promotion to Grade 20 was without any such restriction and had been made for an indefinite period. His reversion to Grade 19 was, accordingly, held not to be within the ambit of section 12 of the Civil Servants Act.
13. In support of this appeal before us learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Service Tribunal had erred in thinking that the promotion of the appellant to Grade 20 by the Selection Board was unconditional and there was nothing to show that his promotion was on a temporary basis. In this connection, he drew or attention to an extract of the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Board held on 4-1-1977 which showed that the Board had cleared the respondent for appointment as Director-General in the Research and Reference Wing of the Ministry of Religious Affairs, a Grade 20 post, on ad had basis. This document, we find, was not placed on record of the Service Tribunal and was filed for the first time before this Court along-with the petition for leave, accompanied by an application for permission to place it on record in the Court. No orders have so far been passed on this request.
14. Reliance was also placed on a copy of the letter No. 1/Budget/76(10) dated 7th April, 1977 which is mentioned in the impugned notification dated 19-4-1977 itself. This letter to the extent relevant reads as follows :- "I am directed to convey sanction of the President to the upgradation of one post of Deputy Director (Grade 19) in the Intelligence Bureau (Headquarters) to that of Joint Director (Grade 20) with effect from 4th March, 1977, for the period Dr. Safdar Mahmood continues to serve in the Inteliigence Bureau."
The copy of this letter was presented to us during the actual course of the hearing of the appeal in this Court either on the 17th or 18th October, 1982.
15. On the basis of the above-mentioned two documents, it is contended that the finding of the Service Tribunal, that the respondent was promoted to Grade 2) not on an ad hoc or temporary basis but for an indefinite period of time, is clearly not tenable.
16. The above argument, so far as it goes, has force. The question, however, still remains whether this Court should interfere with the finding of the Service Tribunal that the promotion of the respondent was for an indefinite period, a finding which was a possible one on the material produced before it by relying upon certain material which was not produced before it? To answer this question some discussion on the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the Service Tribunals appears to be necessary.
17. It will be recalled that certain important terms and conditions of service of employees in the civil service of the State were provided for and guaranteed in the Government of India Act, 1935 and in successive cost mutational instruments following the Act of 1935 right up to the Interim Constitution of Pakistan of 1972. The civil servants took full advantage of this right and frequently moved the Courts, especially the High Courts in the country after the conferment of the writ jurisdiction on them in 1954 for the redress of any supposed infraction of this guarantee. The law reports are replete with decisions on this question and testify to the extensive use made of the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts. As, not infrequently the orders impunged before the High Courts were set aside, the executive embarrassed by this inroad into a domain which used to be exclusively their preserve, felt that the guarantee in respect of the rights of the civil servants given in the Constitution itself should be withdrawn that interference by the High Courts in the affairs of the services should be excluded and that disputes concerning their terms and conditions should be dealt with by the Administrative 9r Service Tribunals much in the same manner as such matters are dealt with in France by the Administrative Courts and the Council State, where Ordinary Courts of law do not have any jurisdiction to entertain matters decided by the executive authorities or the Administrative departments. To achieve these objects two completely new provisions were enacted in the Constitution of 1973, the likes of which were not found in any previous constitutional instrument. The first of these was Article 212, which permitted the appropriate Legislature to establish Administrative Courts or Tribunals with exclusive jurisdiction in certain matters, while the second, namely, Article 240, whereby the terms and conditions of persons in the service of Pakistan were to be determined and the safeguards, if any, therefore were to be provided by or under an Act of Parliament instead of, as his theretofore, by the Constitution itself. Consequently, the Civil Servants Act of 1973 was enacted on 26-9-1973 to regulate the appointments to and provide for the terms and conditions of persons in the service of Pakistan. Contemporaneously, the Service Tribunals Act of 1973 to provide for the establishment of Service Tribunals to exercise jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of all civil servants was enacted on 29-9-1973. Accordingly, Service Tribunals were established to deal with appeals by civil servants against orders made by a departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of their service. The Tribunals were empowered, on appeal, to confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against. Thus under the new scheme, the appointment of persons and their terms and conditions in the service of Pakistan were to be regulated by the ,Civil Servants Act and any grievance arising in respect thereof was to be dealt with by a Service Tribunal, which was conferred wide powers to redress any wrong done to the civil servant.
18. In this connection it may also be noted that the Service Tribunal was to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of persons, who are or have been in the service of Pakistan, (including disciplinary matters vide sub-article (1) of Article 212 of the Constitution) ;.And as soon as it was established no other Court could grant an injunction, make any order or entertain any proceedings in respect of any matter, to which its jurisdiction extended and all proceedings in respect of any such matter, which was pending before any other Court, even the 'High Court, immediately before the establishment of the Tribunal was to abate (vide sub-article (2) of Article 212 ibid). Thus, under' the new dispensation, the Service Tribunal was made the sole arbiter of all disputes relevant to the terms and conditions of civil servants ; the jurisdiction of ordinary Courts was excluded altogether in these matters and even matters pending before them abated as ' soon as the Tribunal was established, the parties being left to prefer an appeal before the Service Tribunal in respect of such matters, within 90 days of the establishment of the appropriate Tribunal. The members of the Tribunal were to be appointed by the President and were expected to be experienced administrators, to be presided over by a Judge or a person qualified to be a Judge of the High Court and the orders passed by it were to be final, binding both in the Civil Servants and the Departmental Authority. These provisions leave no doubt that disputes relating to the service rights of civil servants-was henceforth being made the exclusive concern of the Service Tribunals. The only limitation to their otherwise complete power in all such matters was that a B right to this Court to grant leave to appeal in cases wherein it was satisfied that a substantial question of law of public importance was involved, was allowed by sub-Article (3) of Article 212 of the Constitution.
19. Reverting to this case, there is.No dispute that if the promotion of the respondent to Grade 20 was on an ad hoc, officiating or temporary basis he could be reverted to Grade 19. This position was also not disputed by the Tribunal and in so far as this principle is concerned, there was no controversy. The only question, on which there was a controversy was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the promotion of the respondent t Grade 20 was on an ad hoc, temporary or officiating basis. On the material that was placed before the Service Tribunal it came to the conclusion that the respondent's promotion to Grade 20 was not subject to any conditions on his appointment to Grade 20 was for an indefinite period and that it was hi retention in the Intelligence Bureau only that was for "the time being". On this finding of the factual situation, it was held that the case of the respondent did not fall within the mischief of section 12 of the Civil Servants Act. The material which has now been placed before us was not placed before the Tribunal and on the material actually placed before the Tribunal the view taken by it was a possible one and it cannot be said that the view taken by the Tribunal was so arbitrary or perverse, as to qualify it to be an abuse of its jurisdiction, calling for interference by this Court. The appellant failed to place proper material before the Tribunal and the order of Service Tribunal, if the finding of fact as to the nature of the respondent's appointment be correct, would not violate section 12 of the Civil Servants Act. Therefore, the gravamen of the plea of the appellant is that the said finding of fact is wrong. But the finding which the Service Tribunal has arrived at was reached only because the appellant failed to place all the relevant material before it and, therefore, it is itself to blame for its predicament.
20. We regret to say that the administration has not so far properly grasped the position, status and the authority of the Service Tribunal to which the civil servants now take recourse with respect to their grievances. The proceedings before them, we have noticed, are taken very lightly by the departmental authorities and their representatives do not care to place all the relevant facts and material before it and the quality of representation on its behalf also leaves much to be desired.
The deficiences that occur before the Service Tribunal are tried to be filled up before this Court and sometimes even a new case attempted to be raised before it. However, in view of the legal position explained above, namely, that the Service Tribunal is visualised as the exclusive authority to determine all questions, specially those of facts, in cases of alleged violation of the terms and conditions of persons in the service of Pakistan and this Court vis-a-vis it, is not an appellate Court in the normal sense but an authority exercising jurisdiction to interfere only in those cases wherein substantial questions of law of public importance are involved ; this is not possible. No doubt, to do complete justice in any particular case, this Court has ample power to take all actions that may be needed and can, inter alia take into consideration any relevant material that may be available with the parties, which they might have omitted to place before the Service Tribunal. But the present case, in view of the circumstances stated in the sequel does not seem to be a case in which this exceptional power inhering in this Court should be exercised because the result sought to be achieved by the impugned order of the Tribunal appears to be just and equitable on an over all view of the whole case.
21. A fair assessm ent of the entire. Facts of the case shows that the reversion of the respondent to his original grade in the Income-tax Group was not a routine or innocent reversion. It was the outcome of the supposed misconduct Of which he was guilty as Director of the Research Cell. An inquiry, in this connection, was being held against him by a Special Inquiry Team as early as August, 1977 and it called for an explanation in regard to some matters vide its letter dated 4-8- 1977. The explanation submitted by him was apparently not considered satisfactory and it was clearly for this reason that he was reverted on 1-1-1978 from Grade 20 to Grade 19. His services were "replaced" at the disposal of the Central Board of Revenue for appointment in the Income-tax Group in his own grade-(Grade 19) not merely in the normal course but as a punishment and as a measure of displeasure. No doubt is left in this behalf if reference is made to the formal charge- sheet issued to him on 6.4-1978 i,e, after his reversion on 1-1-1978 which relates to his conduct in the Research Cell and begins with the words that:- "Whereas you, Dr. Safdar Mahmood, while working as Joint Director Intelligence Bureau mobilized and utilized all resources of the Research Cell to help Pakistan People's Party in one way or the other during the pre-election and post-election period of 1977
22. Despite the fact that these charges were found to be unfounded and the disciplinary proceedings dropped, vide order dated 24-6-1978, but in the very same order it was also stated that the orders restricting him to his present grade were being maintained. The conclusion that irresistibly follows from these facts is that the reversion of the respondent to Grade 19 on 1-1-1978 was due to the fact that ever since August, 1977 he was considered to be guilty of misconduct, which belief continued to be entertained at least until April 1978, when he was issued the formal charge-sheet. His reversion in-between this period and his being "replaced" to his substantive post (on 1-1-1978) was not, therefore, simply an accident of service but this was ordered as a measure of punishment and displeasure. In these circumstances, the view of the Service Tribunal that the reversion of the respondent to Grade 19 was not justified, therefore, appears to be just and equitable.
23. We may add that we asked Mr. Shahudul Hague, learned counsel for the appellant, whether it was also his case that as the respondent was being reverted to his parent department, he had necessarily to return to his original grade and that any promotion that he may have earned in an ex-cadre appointment, did not affect this general position. In fact, to enable him to consider this aspect of the case the hearing of the appeal was even adjourned to the next day. But on the resumed date of hearing, the learned counsel informed us that he would stick to the stand taken by him before the Service Tribunal, namely, that the action taken against the respondent was under section 12 of the Civil Servants Act and went on to submit with some emphasis that he will "stand by section 12 and stick to section 12 of the Act" and not support his case on any other provision of the rules or law. However, this stand was of no avail if the finding of fact recorded by the Service Tribunal as to the nature of the respondent's appointment to Grade 20 was not interfered with and for the reasons given already this finding of fact is not liable to be interfered with. The provisions of section 12 of the Act, in this view of the matter, are of no help.
24. It may also be observed that the respondent, who started his career as a journalist and thereafter specialized in the subject of Political Science, appears to be more suitable for the posts concerned with social, political, cultural, historical and current affairs rather than with income tax, which does not appear to be his forte. Indeed, we understand that he has now again, after the dust has settled down with regard to his doings I n the Intelligence Bureau, been deputed to an ex- cadre post albeit a Grade 21 post, namely, as Chairman of the Censor Board.
25. The over all conclusion is that, in all the circumstances, this case does not appear to be a fit one for exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. We would, accordingly, dismiss this appeal leaving the parties to bear their own costs.