mr. justice tassaduq hussain jillani mr. justice nasir-ul-mulk mr ...

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 39/2010, 1150/2010, 1162/2010, 142-K/2009, 177-
K/2010, 178-K/2010, 228-K/2010, 57-K/2011, 63-K/2011, 65-K/2011, 66-
K/2011, 83-K/2011, 91-K/2011, 135-K/2011, 136-K/2011, 137-K/2011, 188-
K/2011, 232-K/2011, 75-K/2012 AND 82-K/2012
44
(iv)
Where the action of a statutory authority in a
service matter is in disregard of the procedural
requirements and is violative of the principles of
natural justice, it can be interfered with in writ
jurisdiction.
(v)
That the Removal from Service (Special Powers)
Ordinance, 2000 has an overriding effect and
after its promulgation (27 th of May, 2000), all the
disciplinary proceedings which had been
initiated under the said Ordinance and any
order passed or action taken in disregard to the
said law would be amenable to writ jurisdiction
of the High Court under Article 199 of the
Constitution.
51. This brings us to the precedent case law of this Court
which reflects the conflict of opinion with regard to remedies
available to an employee of a statutory body. As we examine the
law, it may be kept in view that prior to Mubeen-us-Salam’s case
(PLD 2006 SC 602), there were two remedies available to the
employees of the statutory corporations: (i) section 2A of the
Service Tribunals Act; and (ii) under section 10 of the Ordinance,
2000. Section 2A of the Service Tribunals Act, was declared ultra
vires of the Constitution and the appeals pending before the
Tribunal abated. The effect of section 10 of the Ordinance 2000,
however, was not considered by the Court in the said judgment. As
discussed in para 49 above, the effect of deprivation of right to