Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: The petitioners, serving as Inspectors/Senior Patrol Officers, challenged disciplinary actions taken against them, alleging violations of their constitutional and legal rights. Petitioner No. 1 was penalized with a reduction in rank, while Petitioner No. 2 was dismissed from service. Both petitioners filed appeals with the Federal Service Tribunal (FST); Petitioner No. 1's appeal was allowed, while Petitioner No. 2's appeal remained pending due to the non-functioning of the FST. The petitioners contested their subsequent transfer orders issued on 14.4.2014, alleging that these actions violated the principle of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution and Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC). They also argued that the orders were arbitrary and failed to consider their personal circumstances, including family dependencies. ------- Issues: ------- 1) Does the issuance of transfer orders on disciplinary grounds constitute double jeopardy? ------- 2) Can the transfer orders be deemed arbitrary or unlawful in the absence of malafide intent or illegality? ------- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Double Jeopardy Misconception: The court held that the principle of double jeopardy does not apply in this case. The earlier and present disciplinary actions were based on distinct charge sheets: Earlier charges included granting unauthorized permission to a private individual and receiving fines while off duty. The current charges alleged involvement in corrupt practices and substandard performance. As the allegations in the respective charge sheets were separate, the argument of double jeopardy was found to be misconceived. ------- Transfer Orders: The court stated that transfers and postings are routine executive matters and cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction unless there is evidence of glaring malafide intent or illegality. In this case, no such evidence was presented. ------- Outcome: The petition was dismissed in limine as it lacked merit. ------- Citations/Precedents: Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan: Protection against double jeopardy. Section 403 Cr.PC: Prohibition of prosecution for the same offense.

Summary: Background: The petitioner alleged harassment and discriminatory actions by respondents 6 and 7, stationed in Taxila/Rawalpindi, which included threats and denial of official transport for her minor daughter. The petitioner claimed that the respondents became vindictive after directions were issued in her favor by the Human Rights Cell of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Additionally, the petitioner raised concerns about salary deductions allegedly accumulated by the respondents, which, when inquired about, resulted in threats. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Islamabad High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition when the respondents primarily involved are stationed outside its jurisdiction. -----2- Whether the petitioner has sought any specific relief against respondents within the territorial jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Territorial Jurisdiction: The court noted that respondents 5 to 7 were stationed in Taxila/Rawalpindi, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court. As per Section 4 of the Islamabad High Court Act, 2010, the court lacks jurisdiction over matters primarily involving respondents outside its territorial limits. --Relief Against Other Respondents: The court observed that the petitioner did not seek any substantive relief against respondents located within the jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court. As such, the dominant object of the grievance was outside the court’s territorial limits. --Proper Forum: The court determined that the petition should be filed before the appropriate forum with jurisdiction over the matter, as the Islamabad High Court was not the correct forum. The petition was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court directed the office to return the petition to the petitioner for filing at the proper forum. -----Citations/Precedents: Section 4 of the Islamabad High Court Act, 2010: Limits the jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court to matters within its territorial boundaries. Principles of territorial jurisdiction: A court cannot adjudicate matters beyond its legally defined territorial limits.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.