Reinstatment

2010 SCMR 1495 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Regln.4 (ii)(c)(2)General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-AConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 4 & 5 (2)Reinstatment in serviceEvaluation of performanceCriteriaPublic functionariesDecision of cases of employees by employer/functionariesPrinciple

Respondents were employees of appellant corporation and their services were terminated on the basis of average poor performance for previous years

Service Tribunal reinstated respondents in service with back benefits and allowed appellant corporation to re-evaluate performance of respondents according to the criteria fixed by Supreme Court

Validity

It was duty and obligation of public functionaries to decide cases of their subordinates after application of mind in view of Arts. 4 and 5 (2) of the Constitution

Duty and obligation of competent authority under S. 24-A, General Clauses Act, 1897 to decide cases of subordinates after application of mind with reasons

Substantial justice was done by Service Tribunal through its judgments and Supreme Court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of appellant corporation as the corporation failed to raise any question of public importance as contemplated in Art. 212 (3) of the Constitution

Appeal was dismissed.

2010 SCMR 1392 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 212(3)Civil ServiceReinstatmentReputation of being corruptProofJudicial officer was dismissed from service on the allegation of his being corruptService Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by judicial officer and reinstated him in serviceValidity

If the judicial officer was having persistent reputation of being corrupt, the same could not be decided in vacuum and scrutiny of Annual Confidential Reports were the only device to assess the persistent reputation of being corrupt or otherwise

Annual Confidential Reports during the posting of judicial officer at place in question were silent in that regard

If there had been some complaint, the position would have been different and some remarks could have been made in Annual Confidential Reports

No advice was ever tendered to the judicial officer for improvement in that sphere

Authorized officer did not agree with the recommendations of Inquiry Officer by whom judicial officer was exonerated but reasoning whereof was academic, Authorized officer might be correct logically but not legally

Some proof to substantiate the allegation of persistent reputation of being corrupt had to be there

:Authorities failed to bring on record anything whereof such a serious charge could have been substantiated

Inquiry Officer had examined the entire evidence produced in support of allegation of corruption and exonerated the judicial officer by giving convincing and cogent reasoning which could not be brushed aside and was rightly taken into consideration and relied upon by Service Tribunal

Prosecution failed to substantiate the accusation of corruption against the judicial officer

Service Tribunal had scrutinized the entire evidence with diligent application of mind and conclusion arrived at was in consonance with law and evidence which could not be reversed without any lawful justification and the same was lacking in the case

Judgment passed by Service Tribunal was well-based and did not warrant interference

Appeal was dismissed.