ATIR Member Judicial: LHC dismisses intra-court appeal against appointment

ISLAMABAD: The Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, has dismissed an intra-court appeal challenging the appointment of Member Judicial of the Appellate Tribunal, Inland Revenue (ATIR). In this regard, the LHC has issued a judgement (I. C. A No. 111 of 2023). The appellant, a citizen and taxpayer, had filed a constitutional petition seeking a writ of quo warranto, arguing that the respondent’s appointment was illegal due to his past involvement in a criminal case under sections 420, 468 and 471 PPC, from which he was acquitted on the basis of compromise, allegedly reflecting adversely on his character and suitability to hold a public office. The appellant also contended that the appointment violated the Civil Servants Act, 1973, particularly the requirement of satisfactory character verification during probation. The Court, however, first elaborated the nature and scope of quo warranto proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution, emphasizing that such jurisdiction is inquisitorial, discretionary, and only to be exercised in exceptional cases where a clear legal defect exists in holding a public office by an individual. It further observed that such petitions must be bona fide and in public interest, not motivated by personal grievances. On merits, the Court found that the respondent was duly qualified under section 130 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and that there was no legal bar in the applicable rules preventing appointment of a person previously involved in a criminal case but subsequently acquitted. The Court also held that an acquittal, even on the basis of compromise, does not disqualify a person. This cannot be treated as “dishonourable” in law, relying on Supreme Court precedents. Distinguishing the cited case law relied upon by the appellant, the Court noted that those cases involved specific statutory requirements such as police rules or explicit disclosure obligations, which were not applicable here. Ultimately, the Court concluded that no illegality or procedural defect had been established in the respondent’s appointment. The Court found the petition lacking in bona fides, and upheld the dismissal of the constitutional petition, thereby rejecting the appeal. Copyright Business Recorder, 2026

Read full story on Business Recorder