ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN): --Both the appellants M/s. Jamshaid Akhtar and Gulfam Hussain Shah were working as drivers in the National Police Academy, Islamabad. The disciplinary proceedings were started against them and according to the statement of allegations, they refused to receive the overtime allowance duly sanctioned by the competent authority. They submitted their explanations that their bill of overtime was not in accordance with the rules. They also stated that they should be given proper dues. Their explanation was not accepted. Final show cause notice was served on them and finally they were removed from service by separate orders dated 9-12-1992. They filed departmental appeals separately which remained unresponded. Hence these appeals filed before the Tribunal, on 16-3-1993 and 8-4-1993 respectively.
2. In both the appeals common facts are involved, and therefore, we propose to dispose of both the appeals by this single judgment.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. It is argued that the appellants have wrongly been removed from service because they wanted their legal dues which were not paid to them. Therefore, the order of removal be set aside.
4. The respondents have resisted the appeals and raised preliminary objection that the appellants are not civil servants as this Academy has been constituted under the Societies Act; it has its Board of Governors and their own rules and it is not a statutory body. To this, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that all the members of the Board of Governors are the Government officers, including the Establishment Secretary, and in view of the reported cases PLD 1990 SC 612 and 1989 PLC (C.S:) 476, the appellants are `civil servants' and their appeals are competent before this Tribunal.
5. Before we advert to the merits of the case, the legal objection raised by the respondents with regard to the status of the appellants has to be dealt with first. In the case of Mrs. M.N. Arshad v.
Miss Naeema Khan reported in PLD 1990 SC 612, the facts were that respondent Miss Naeema Khan was employee of Islamabad Model College, for which Board of Governors was constituted by a Resolution by the Ministry of Education and Secretary, Ministry of Education was its Chairman. The entire position of Corporations and Board of Governors has been discussed in this leading case and it has been held that the employees of the Islamabad Model College are civil servants and the Tribunal has rightly exercised its jurisdiction. In this case, the term `civil servant' has exhaustively been discussed. In that case admittedly the Federal Government had established Islamabad Model College and that has been done in the discharge of its Constitutional and statutory obligation as a State. In the capital of the Federation the Federal Government discharges duel functions namely of the Federal Government and of the Provincial Government, and as such the employees of the College have been declared civil servants holding posts in connection with the affairs of the Federation. But, the facts of these two appeals, in hand, are different. The National Police Academy constituted and registered under the Societies Registration Act (XXI of 1860) having a Board of Governors. The objectives of the Academy are to arrange courses for the members of the Police Force. According to the Memorandum of Association, the Board shall prescribe service rules for its servants with the approval of the Federal Government and service under the Board, other than that rendered by persons in pensionable service who are taken on deputation or loan, shall not qualify for pension or gratuity from the Academy Fund; but the Board shall maintain a Contributory Provident Fund for the benefit of its servants in accordance with the rules. It thus follows that no doubt the Chairman and Members of the Board of Governors are Government functionaries, but the service under the Academy is not a service in connection with the affairs of the Federation, and therefore, its employees are not civil servants.
6. Similar question came up before this Tribunal in another Appeal No. 13(R)/91, filed by Fazal Subhan v. Prime Minister of Pakistan and others reported in 1992 PLC (C.S.) 887, wherein the case of Mrs. M.N. Arshad v. Miss Naeema Khan (PLD 1990 SC 612) was also discussed; and it was held that the employees of the Agricultural Prices Commission, a body set up as an autonomous body, under the Resolution, are not civil servants as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. In this case, several cases decided by the Tribunal had been referred anal it was observed that the employees of the organisations set up under the Resolution are not necessarily to be treated as civil servants.
Against the judgment of the Tribunal, the appellant Mr. Fazal Subhan filed Civil Petition No.185 of 1992 before the Supreme Court. The view of the Tribunal was maintained and his appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, holding that the employees of the Agricultural Prices Commission, set up by the Resolution, are not civil servants. Similar view was taken by a Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ali Ahmad v. Secretary, Ministries, Islamabad and 2 others reported in 1989 PLC (C.S.) 476.
7. For the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the appellants being employees of the National Police Academy, are not civil servants and cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Their appeals are not competent and are accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.