ZAHEER AHMAD KHAN LODHI vs PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ZAHEER AHMAD KHAN LODHI VS PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED Ss.35 & 36---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, R.2(3) [since repealed]---Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2020, R.21---Disciplinary proceedings, challenge to---Constitutional petition, filing of---Maintainability---Non-statutory service rules of transferred employees---Issuance of show cause notice and charge sheet, assailing of---Briefly, matter comprised of multiple constitutional petitions filed by employees of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), grouped into two categories: Category "A", consisting of petitioners who were not employees of the erstwhile Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department and joined PTCL after the enactment of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991 and the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996; and Category "B", consisting of petitioners who were originally employees of the T&T Department and were subsequently transferred first to the Corporation and then to PTCL---The petitions arose out of disciplinary proceedings initiated by PTCL, including the issuance of show-cause notices and charge sheets against the petitioners---All petitions challenged the initiation of disciplinary actions by PTCL and involved questions relating to the nature of employment of the petitioners, the applicable service framework, and the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the petitions---Held: Petitioners of category (A) petitions were neither civil servants nor were they employed as employees of T&T department and were rather appointed by the corporation, therefore, the petitions mentioned in category (A) were not maintainable since the services of these petitioners were never regulated under any statutory rules as they started their employments being employees of corporation and were then transferred to PTCL as transferred employees---After PTCL's privatization under the Act, 1996 and subsequent amendments thereto, the petitioners' status in both categories (A & B) seized to be that of civil servants and they were governed by the PTCL's internal rules and regulations or standing orders---Consequently, the E&D Rules, 1973 were no longer applicable---It was settled by Supreme Court in the case reported as 2021 SCMR 1998 that an employee, who, at no point, had served in T&T department, could not claim that his terms and conditions of service were baptized by any statutory protections---Such employees could not invoke constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution for agitating the grievance pertaining to their service matters---It was the case of the petitioners in category (B) petitions that since the proceedings sought to be initiated against the them were in violations of the E&D Rules 1973, as such proceedings had either not been initiated by mentioning the E&D Rules, 1973 or where even so mentioned, the proceedings were not initiated by the 'competent authority', therefore, the proceedings were without jurisdiction---This ground failed for two reasons; firstly, the E&D Rules, 1973 had been repealed by virtue of R. 21 of the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2020 (E&D Rules, 2020) and the concept or term 'authorized officer', as couched in sub-rule (3) of R. 2 of E&D Rules, 1973 had been done away with by the substituted/replaced Rules i.e. E&D Rules, 2020, thus the entire premise of the case sought to be built by the petitioners was without any foundation---Without prejudice to the foregoing, even sub-rule (3) of the R. 2 of E&D Rules, 1973 provided that if no officer was so authorized, the authority could proceed to perform such functions---This was beside the point that the petitioners of category 'B' could not insist that they could only and exclusively be proceeded under the E&D Rules, 1973 and the prescribed rules and regulations of Corporation/PTCL, could not be invoked---Mere maintainability of a constitutional petition, owing to statutory protections in terms of Ss. 35 & 36 of the Act, 1996, did not mean that the petitioners could stifle the very essence and purpose of the incorporation of the PTCL and the Act, 1996---It was concluded that the proceedings initiated by the respondent PTCL had lawfully been commenced, therefore, filing of present petitions by way of laying challenges to the mere issuance of the show cause notices and charge sheets were not tenable---All petitions, falling under categories "A" and "B", were dismissed---Category "A" petitions being held not-maintainable for want of jurisdiction, while category "B" petitions were dismissed on.

ZAHEER AHMAD KHAN LODHI vs PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED Ss — 2026 PLC(CS) 549 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLC