Govt employees cannot take part in politics: SC
ISLAMABAD, Nov 12: The Supreme Court has observed that a government servant is not entitled to indulge in politics when in service and upheld the dismissal of a employee of the Pakistan Ordinance Factories for indulging in politics.
Jamil Ahmad Malik, president of the POF Officers Union, was dismissed from service on the ground that while in service he indulged in politics.
Jamil Malik, who claimed to be the secretary general of the Communist Party of Pakistan, distributed on Wednesday the copies of the Supreme Court judgment in which it upheld his forced retirement. The judgment, he said, showed two sets of principles — one for the powerful, and the other for the powerless.
When asked to elaborate his assertion, he said the judiciary had allowed Chief of the Army Staff Gen Pervez Musharraf, who was a government servant, to not only indulge in politics but also to hold the office of president, while the same judiciary had punished him for taking part in politics. Read the rest of this entry
The SC bench consisted of Mr Justice Nazim Hussain Siddique, Mr Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Mr Justice Faqir Muhammad.
Jameel Ahmed Malik was accused of conducting a press conference and distributing pamphlets against the management of POF, therefore he was compulsorily retired from the services and his appeal was also rejected by the Federal Services Tribunal.
Appearing personally in the Supreme Court, Engineer Jameel Ahmed Malik argued before the court that he conducted the press conference using his right of freedom of speech under Article 19, therefore, his retirement was illegal.
The Supreme Court dismissing his petition while rebutting his contentions, observed that in a democratic setup freedom of speech, expression and freedom of press were the essential requirement of democracy and without them the concept of democracy could not be established.
The court, however, added that the petitioner, in his pamphlet, had talked about all the latest happening in the new world order and wanted to organize seminars and symposiums about the geo-political situation, culture, art and history of Muslim world to enlighten the outlook of the members of the Association. This, the court, said was manifestly in violation of Rules 22 and 29 of the Rules of 1964, besides being misconducted within the meaning of Rule 2(4) of the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973.
The court observed that nothing substantial had been brought on record to hold that Rule 22 of the Rules of 1964 was ultra vires to the constitution.
The Supreme Court also observed that in order to maintain the proper discipline, it was necessary to place certain restrictions on the freedom of the speech of government servants.