ISLAMABAD, April 15: The Supreme Court has ruled that departmental functionaries are only obliged to carry out lawful orders of their superiors and if they are being pressured to implement an illegal order, they should put on record their dissenting note.

The court in a judgment on political appointments in government departments (civil review petition No.73-L of 2001), released last week, ruled that the officials who succumbed to the whims of their superiors and implemented illegal orders needed to the taken to task.

It accepted the petition and restored the services of 304 low-grade employees of the Punjab Textbook Board. "Good governance is dependent on an upright, honest and strong bureaucracy. Therefore, submission to the will of superior is not a commendable trait in a bureaucrat," the court held.

The Supreme Court bench comprised Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Justice Rana Bhagwandas and Justice Sardar Mohammad Raza Khan. Justice Chaudhry, who wrote the judgment, observed that the court had noted with pain that departmental authorities submitted to whims and wishes of their superiors and felt no hesitation in implementing even an illegal order.

The Supreme Court held that it had time and again emphasized that the departmental functionaries were only obliged to carry out lawful orders of their superiors and if they were being pressured to implement an illegal order, they should put on record their dissenting note. "If such practice is followed chances of passing illegal orders shall be minimized," it said.

The court stated that the elected representatives in charge of administrative departments were not expected to carry with them deep insight into the complexities of administration.

"The duty of a bureaucrat, therefore, is to apprise these elected representatives the nicety of the administration and provide them correct guidance in discharge of their functions in accordance with law," it said.

The court held that succumbing to every order or direction of such elected functionaries without bringing to their notice the legal infirmities in such orders might some times amount to act of indiscretion on the part of bureaucrats, which might not be justifiable on the plane of hierarchal discipline.

"It hardly needs to be mentioned that a government servant is expected to comply only those orders of his superiors which are legal and within the competence," it said.

The court held that the beneficiary of the illegal orders alone could not be blamed because primarily the authority that had actually mis-exercised its powers for the reason known to it was bound to be held responsible for the same instead of penalizing the petty employees like watchmen, naib qasids and junior clerks, who had to earn a livelihood to support their families.

If such employees, after having served for a long period, were removed from service indiscriminately, such an action would not promote the cause of the action and it would give rise to problems to them, it said.

"In this regard, on a number of occasions, it has been held by this court that instead of removing the employees from service, action should have been taken against the authority who had mis-exercised its powers," it said.