14. Composition and appointment of presiding
officers of Anti-Terrorism Court.--(1) An Anti-Terrorism Court shall consist of
a Judge, being a person who:--
[(i) is a Judge of a High Court or is or has been
a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge; or
(ii) is a Judicial Magistrate First Class
vested with powers under Section 30 of the Code; or
(iii) has for a period of not less than ten
years been an advocate of a High Court.]
(2) The Federal Government or the Provincial
Government, if directed by the Federal Government to establish a Court under
this Act, shall, after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court,
appoint a Judge of each Court.
(3) A Judge shall hold office for a period of two
and a half years but may be appointed for such further term or part of term as
the Government appointing the Judge may determine.
(4) A Judge may be removed from his office prior
to the completion of the period for which he has been appointed after
consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court.
(5) In case a judge is on leave or for any other
reason temporarily unable to perform his duties, the Government making
appointment of such judge may, after consultation with the Chief Justice of
High Court, authorize the Sessions Judge, having jurisdiction at the principal
seat of the Anti Terrorism Court, to conduct proceedings of urgent nature so
long as such judge is unable to perform his duties.
[(6) The Anti-terrorism Court existing immediately
before the commencement of the Anti-terrorism (Second Amendment) Ordinance,
2002, and the judges appointed to such Courts, shall, subject to the provisions
of this Act, as amended, continue to function and try offences under this Act.]
Note: Section 14, as substituted by Anti-Terrorism
(Amdt.) Ordinance 2002 (VI of 2002) [PLD 2002 Cent.
COMMENTARY
Petitioner was holding a
statutory office of judge
1997, but during
subsistance of contract, he was prematurely removed from service on
the basis of certain
allegations without giving any opportunity to clear his position
simply on letter
addressed by Governor to the Law Minister. Appointment of petitioner
was made after consultation
with Chief Justice of Lahore High Court on finding him to be
a fit person to hold
Judicial Office and petitioner performed his duties for a period of about one
and half year. Petitioner who was removed on basis of certain allegations
without giving him opportunity to clear his position was within his right to
press the Constitutional Petition to remove stigma of "removal from
service" from his name as well as to claim arrears of his salary. Under
Provision of Section 14(4) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it had been made
incumbent upon the Competent Authority to consult Chief Justice at the time of
removal of Judge Anti-Terrorism. Chief Justice, in circumstances, must be taken
into confidence by Federal or Provincial Government and he should be apprised of
reasons justifying removal of Judge, but that had not been done in the case of
Petitioner. Statute no doubt contained provision for removal of a Judge from
service but that was a very serious step and ought not to be lightly taken unless it
was essential to uphold dignity of Court and secure interests of administration
of justice. Action taken against petitioner, in circumstances, was arbitrary
and not justifiable in the eye of law. Order of removal of petitioner from
service was declared to be illegal, arbitrary, without lawful authority and of
no legal effect by High Court in exercise of its Constitutional Jurisdiction.
Petitioner was entitled to payment of his salary for the remaining period of
his contract i.e 6 months and 12 days. PLJ 2002
Nature of allegations
was neither explained in impugned order nor during arguments by the Law Officer
of respondent. Inference would be that action taken against petitioner was
arbitrary and not justifiable in the eye of law. PLJ 2002
Principle of natural
justice "audi alteram partem" would be applicable and would be deemed
to be part of every statute unless its application was specifically excluded.
PLJ 2002
Petitioner's removal
having been ordered on basis of certain allegations without giving him
opportunity to clear his position, he was within his right to press writ
petition to remove stigma of removal from his name as well as to claim arrears
of his salary. PLJ 2002