ISLAMABAD: The Sindh High Court (SHC) set aside the “Dismissal Order” of a PAF chief technician issued under Section 20 of PAF Act 1953 and Rule 31-A of the PAF Rules 1957.
The Court found no inherent illegality in Section 20 of the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953, and Rule 31-A of Pakistan Air Force Rules, 1957, and held that these provisions are neither ultra vires the said Act nor violative of any of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution.
A Division Bench of the SHC, partly allowing the petition, said since the petitioner (Ex Chief Technician Abdul Monem) has retired from service, thus, he is not reinstated, but he shall be deemed to have been discharged from Pakistan Air Force, with the entitlement to receive service dues, benefits applicable to his cadre and length of service.
Abdul Monem had challenged the “Dismissal Order” dated 14-06-2024, issued under Section 20(1) and Rule 31-A. He prayed the Court to declare his dismissal as per Section 20(1) and Rule 31-A without adopting any court martial trial procedure is contrary to the Pakistan Air Force Act of 1953 and ultra vires/ repugnant to the 1973 Constitution.
The judgment said that Section 20 came up for consideration in various cases, including Abdul Basit and Umar Islam Cases (2012 SCMR 1229 and 2021 PLC [CS] 92). None of these Judgments has observed any illegality in Section 20.
The judgment said merely that because a provision of law is exercised in a colourable manner, it does not justify that the same be declared as illegal or struck down. This is what has happened in the present case.
It said that the respondents have misused and have wrongly exercised the authority under Section 20 (1) read with Rule 31-A, inter alia, because due process as required under the Act was flagrantly violated. If the Petitioner’s case was dealt with in accordance with the Act, Rules, and the prescribed procedure, then the appellate or other curative forum would have been availed, but abruptly his service was terminated as highlighted in the foregoing paragraphs.
About non-maintainability of this petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, the judgment held that undisputedly, the petitioner was performing his duties at PAF Base Faisal, at Karachi; the alleged complaint about the embezzlement in service medicines, relates to PAF Hospital (at Karachi); the Board of Inquiry was initiated by the Correspondence Base Routine Orders dated 22nd June 2020 issued from Karachi, that is, PAF Base (Faisal); since these crucial set of facts necessary for determining the present dispute have previously occurred at Karachi; therefore, we are of the view that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to scrutinize the controversy.
The judgment said that the dismissal of the petitioner from the service was done in a gross violation of the prescribed procedure, due process, and the Act itself. The violation of due process of law is, in fact, a violation of the fundamental rights as protected under Article 10-A of the Constitution. When the legal process is unnecessarily delayed, inaccessible, or obstructed by undue complexities, it becomes a barrier to justice itself.
The judgment agreed with the arguments of the respondents’ legal team that military discipline forms the backbone of the Armed Forces and is indispensable for ensuring collective national defense. Undoubtedly, the Pakistan Air Force has proven its mettle whenever called upon to do.
To maintain that high standard of discipline and professionalism, it is equally necessary to have processes of accountability that ensure that no one is condemned without due process.
If any action or decision under the Act can go unchecked, without there being a curative forum, then it would only promote arbitrariness within institutions. It is discussed in the Judgment of Gulzar Ahmed Case (PLD 2019 Sindh 697) that accountability is directly linked with good governance, and non-adherence results in disaster.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025