ABBOTTABAD:
In a significant ruling that reinforces administrative authority within medical teaching institutions, the Peshawar High Court (PHC)’s Abbottabad Bench has set aside an order of the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institution (MTI) Tribunal which had granted a stay to a suspended employee.
The court declared the Tribunal’s order unfair, biased and beyond its jurisdiction, terming it a clear violation of both the MTI Tribunal Act and the constitutional principles of fair trial.
The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Syed Mudasser Ameer and Justice Aurangzeb, while hearing Writ Petition No 1186-A/2025, filed by the Chairman, Board of Governors (BoG), Ayub Medical Teaching Institution (AMTI) Abbottabad, through the BoG Secretary.
The petition challenged the Tribunal’s September 16, 2025 order, which had granted interim relief to Director Physical Education, Bilal Jadoon, without seeking a response from or providing a hearing to the BoG. Advocates Khurram Ghyas and Saeed Akhtar represented the petitioners.
The PHC observed that the Tribunal had acted in direct contravention of Rule 31(6) of the K-P MTI Appellate Tribunal Rules 2020, which expressly prohibits the issuance of any interim order suspending an employee’s termination or suspension. The court further noted that the order had been passed by a single member, in violation of Rule 12(8), which requires that all appeals be heard by a bench comprising at least two members.
Justice Ameer held that the Tribunal’s orderissued in undue haste and without affording the petitioners a fair hearingviolated Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process. The judgment underscored that suspension is not a punitive measure, but an administrative step aimed at ensuring impartiality during disciplinary proceedings.
In a key interpretation, the court also invoked the “de facto doctrine”, thereby validating all decisions taken in good faith by executive authorities, even if made beyond their tenure or outside the prescribed 90-day limit. This principle, the court noted, ensures continuity of governance and prevents unwarranted administrative disruption.
