ABDUL MONEM (Ex. Chief Technician) vs VICE CHIEF OF AIR STAFF [Pakistan Air Force] art

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

ABDUL MONEM (Ex. Chief Technician) VS VICE CHIEF OF AIR STAFF [Pakistan Air Force] art.199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Dismissal from service, challenge to---Territorial jurisdiction---Determination---The alleged complaint about the embezzlement in service medicines was relating to PaF Hospital [at Karachi]; the Board of Inquiry was initiated by the correspondence---Base Routine Orders issued from [Karachi]---Since the crucial set of facts had previously occurred [at Karachi], therefore, the High Court [at Karachi] had territorial jurisdiction to scrutinize the controversy. Citation Name: 2026 PLD 214 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ABDUL MONEM (Ex. Chief Technician) VS VICE CHIEF OF AIR STAFF [Pakistan Air Force] Ss.20(1), 52, 65, 73, 81, 82 & 120---Pakistan Airforce Act Rules, 1957, R.31-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.10-A & 199---Constitutional petition---Pakistan Air Force personnel---Dismissal from service, challenge to---Misappropriation of service medicines, allegation of---Show-cause notice issued after prolonged delay---Not conducting trial within prescribed limitation period (three years)---Effect---Punishment "on conviction by court-martial", procedure of---Court-martial not convened---Consequences---Whether dismissal from service was fair in circumstances---Fair trial and due process, violation of---Facts: Petitioner worked as 'ex-chief technician' at Pakistan Air Force who filed the present constitutional petition challenging his dismissal from service order, purportedly passed under S.20(1) of the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953 read with R.31-A of the Pakistan Air Force Act Rules, 1957---Record reflected that a board of inquiry regarding alleged embezzlement/misappropriation of "service medicines" was initiated and a show-cause notice was issued, and thereafter the impugned dismissal followed, while no court-martial proceedings were shown to have been conducted---Issue: Pivotal issue requiring determination before the High Court was as to "whether, despite Art.199(3), the petition was maintainable on the pleaded jurisdictional/due-process grounds, and whether dismissal under S.20(1) read with R.31-A, after initiating inquiry machinery and without completing the prescribed statutory procedure (including court-martial where required), was lawful and consistent with due process/fair trial, and further, whether S.20(1) and R.31-A were ultra vires the Act/repugnant to the Constitution?"---Held: Board of Inquiry [BOI] in respect of the alleged misappropriation done by the petitioner in service medicines, was initiated on 22.06.2020 and the petitioner was dismissed from service vide the impugned Order on 14th June 2024, that was, after four years---On 21.09.2021, the Additional Board of Inquiry (ABOI) was initiated and show cause notice was issued after four years from the date of initiation of the Board of Inquiry that was, 20.06.2020 and after two and a half years from the issuance of ABOI)---Upon charges against the petitioner the punishment was to be awarded after court martial, which admittedly was not done---Once the respondents had elected to prosecute the petitioner by initiating a BOI, then halfway through, and that too after nearly four years, it could not abruptly dismiss the petitioner without first completing the prescribed procedure---Respondents had misused and had wrongly exercised the authority under S.20(1) of the Pakistan Airforce Act, 1953 read with R.31-A of the Pakistan Airforce Act Rules, 1957 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---No inherent illegality in the above provisions under challenge was found---Merely because aprovision of law was exercised in a colourable manner, did not justify that the same be declared as illegal or struck down---Section 20 of the Act and R.31-A of the Rules were neither ultra vires the said Act nor violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution---To the extent of challenge to the vires of the Act and the Rules the present petition was dismissed---The respondents had violated their laid down statutory procedure, therefore, the impugned dismissal order was set-aside---Since petitioner had retired from service, thus, he was not reinstated, but, he was to be deemed to have been discharged from respondent PAF, with the entitlement to receive service dues, benefits applicable to his cadre and length of service---Present constitutional petition was partly allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2026 PLD 214 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ABDUL MONEM (Ex. Chief Technician) VS VICE CHIEF OF AIR STAFF [Pakistan Air Force] arts.10-a, 37(d) & 199---Court martial proceedings---Death sentence---Violation of due process and fair trial---Fundamental rights of the accused, protection of---Principles of Policy---Scope---The violation of due process of law is a violation of the fundamental rights as protected under art.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---access to justice is a human and fundamental right of a person and citizen---The concept of justice being sine qua non of a civil order in the society has been highlighted in the words "Society cannot exist without justice and justice cannot prosper without independent judges"---article 37[d] of the Constitution enjoins that State shall ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice---although the Principles set out in Chapter 2-Principles of Policy are not enforceable through Courts, but at the same time they have been termed as the conscience of the Constitution---Therefore, the Governments [Provincial and Federal] and the State institutions must ensure continuous improvement in the justice delivery system---Negligence or lacking towards this constitutional obligation would have disastrous and long-lasting repercussions, because no society can flourish without an independent justice delivery system in place---Principles of Policy is the covenant between the State, Organs of the State, its functionaries and citizens of this country, and thus, state policies must be structured on this constitutional covenant. Citation Name: 2026 PLD 214 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ABDUL MONEM (Ex. Chief Technician) VS VICE CHIEF OF AIR STAFF [Pakistan Air Force] arts.8 & 199---Legislation in derogation of the Fundamental Rights of the citizens, vires of---any legislation by the Parliament or Provincial assembly, either in violation of the prescribed legislative powers in the Constitution, contrary to the Islamic laws and Fundamental Rights, are declared as ultra vires the Constitution and illegal---The very conception of a fundamental right being a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be taken away by the law, and it is not only technically inartistic but also a fraud on the citizens for the makers of the Constitution to say the right is fundamental but that it may be taken away by the law. Citation Name: 2026 PLD 214 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ABDUL MONEM (Ex. Chief Technician) VS VICE CHIEF OF AIR STAFF [Pakistan Air Force] art.199---Judicial review---Foreign national / "foreign accused" in custody of Pakistani authorities on charges of espionage and terrorism---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Locus standi---Court-martial proceedings---Field General Court Martial---Death sentence---Statutory/departmental appeal rejected by appellate Court---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, invocation of---Scope---The judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court under art.199 of the Constitution is recognized internationally---a foreign accused who was in custody of Pakistani authorities on the charges of espionage and terrorism, for his release of whom, International Court of Justice was approached, could invoke the jurisdiction of High Court under art.199, against death sentence handed down against him by the Field General Court martial, appeal against which was rejected by the appellate court. Citation Name: 2026 PLD 214 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case ABDUL MONEM (Ex. Chief Technician) VS VICE CHIEF OF AIR STAFF [Pakistan Air Force] Merely because a provision of law is exercised in a colourable manner, does not justify that the same be declared as illegal or struck down.

ABDUL MONEM (Ex. Chief Technician) vs VICE CHIEF OF AIR STAFF [Pakistan Air Force] art — 2026 PLD 214 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD