Proceedings

Petitioner / civil servant was aggrieved of show cause notice issued to him regarding departmental inquiry on the allegation of sexual harassment of a female employee

Validity

Proceedings initiated under provisions of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 are a matter between Federal Government in its capacity as an employer and a civil servant in his/her capacity as an employee

Purpose of such proceedings is to ensure that an employee is abiding by the terms and conditions of service prescribed for purposes of his/her conduct in discharge of his/her duties

Object and scope of Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 is altogether different as the rationale for enactment of such law, as explained in its Preamble, is to provide for protection of women from harassment at workplace

Set of facts on the basis of which a complaint was founded against accused under provisions of Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 needed to be inquired into, which if proved, consequences and penalties prescribed under Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 were to flow toward petitioner / civil servant

Proceedings under Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 are adversarial in nature, where a complainant makes allegations against an accused and the same have to be proved on the basis of cogent evidence

Penalties prescribed in terms of S. 4 of Protection Against Harassment of Women At the Workplace Act, 2010 may be similar to, or overlap with, the penalties prescribed in terms of R. 4 of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, and the same has no bearing on the object, purpose and effect of the proceedings under Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 on one hand and Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, on the other

High Court declined to interfere in show cause notice issued to petitioner / civil servant

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner / civil servant was aggrieved of show cause notice issued to him regarding departmental inquiry on the allegation of sexual harassment of a female employee

Validity

Proceedings initiated under provisions of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 are a matter between Federal Government in its capacity as an employer and a civil servant in his/her capacity as an employee

Purpose of such proceedings is to ensure that an employee is abiding by the terms and conditions of service prescribed for purposes of his/her conduct in discharge of his/her duties

Object and scope of Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 is altogether different as the rationale for enactment of such law, as explained in its Preamble, is to provide for protection of women from harassment at workplace

Set of facts on the basis of which a complaint was founded against accused under provisions of Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 needed to be inquired into, which if proved, consequences and penalties prescribed under Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 were to flow toward petitioner / civil servant

Proceedings under Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 are adversarial in nature, where a complainant makes allegations against an accused and the same have to be proved on the basis of cogent evidence

Penalties prescribed in terms of S. 4 of Protection Against Harassment of Women At the Workplace Act, 2010 may be similar to, or overlap with, the penalties prescribed in terms of R. 4 of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, and the same has no bearing on the object, purpose and effect of the proceedings under Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 on one hand and Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, on the other

High Court declined to interfere in show cause notice issued to petitioner / civil servant

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 is a special law and pursuant to S. 1(2), Cr.P.C. nothing contained in Cr.P.C. applies to workplace harassment unless there is a specific provision to the contrary

There is no section in Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 which specifically makes the provisions of Cr.P.C. applicable thereto

Nothing contained in Cr.P.C. affects workplace harassment pursuant to S. 1(2), Cr.P.C.

Where there is no express provision regarding conduct of proceedings or inquiry, Ombudsperson may, as per S. 8(3) of Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, read with R.10 of Workplace Harassment Rules, 2013conduct proceedings or inquiry as per provisions of Cr.P.C. to arrive at a just conclusion and may formulate recommendations and findings.

Appellant was aggrieved of appointment of administrator/manager to look after the affairs of person and properties of the patient through a law firm appointed in that respect

Mother of the patient assailed judgment of Single Judge of High Court directing Advocate General to give his consent to approach Court of Protection

Validity

Granting or refusing consent by Advocate General under S. 29 of Mental Health Ordinance, 2001,was no judicial determination of any legal rights of parties to intended action

All questions relating to appointment of guardian of person and manager of property of mentally disordered had to be decided only by Court which was to entertain petition

Even if Advocate General was to hold an enquiry, he was merely to see whether there was a prima facie case that should be allowed

Appointment of an advocate through a Wakalatnama gave him power to appear and act for any person in any Court, but not before any office such as Advocate General

Application made by law firm/advocate to Advocate General without signature of respondent was not proper and competent, nor the same could be considered that it was filed by any relative of the patient

Petition of respondent under Art. 199 of the Constitution, was not rightly allowed by Single Judge of High Court and Constitutional petition filed by respondent was dismissed

Intra Court Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Petitioners were sugar mills and their Association who assailed show cause notices issued by authorities on the ground that it was a Provincial subject and Federal laws were not applicable

Validity

Held, it was the Parliament, with jurisdiction all over the country, to legislate over the subject when it related to sugar mills

Undertaking having presence in more than one province physically and effectively, to ensure free competition in trade, commerce, etc. was duty and domain of the Federation

Federal law enacted by Parliament could meet the issue and serve national economy for assigned purpose, which was what the scheme of Arts. 18 & 151 of the Constitution, which had stipulated: free trade, commerce and intercourse throughout Pakistan with free competition and consumer protection

Any past proceedings by the Commission against Sugar Mills Association, mother association, would not render proceedings against petitioners to find out their part, if any, in prohibited agreements either nullity in the eyes of law or hit by doctrine of "double jeopardy" or "res judicata"

If any undertaking was found in breach of a provision of the Competition Commission Act, 2010, it was to be held accountable for its individual act but when it had committed such breach in its dual capacity i.e. individual and a part of the Association, such undertaking could be made answerable separately for its actions

Proceedings under S.12(2) C.P.C. are in the nature of declaratory suit claiming declaration to the effect that decree passed by Civil Court was result of fraud and misrepresentation

Fresh civil suit is not competent to seek relief on the ground covered by S.12(2)C.P.C. and it has a lawful effect to encroach upon and curtail remedy before Courts of general jurisdiction in relevant field.

Petition filed under Art.199 of the Constitution to enforce civil rights is deemed to be civil proceedings and procedure provided in Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is applicable.

No one was named in arbitration agreement, therefore, respondents/plaintiffs were left with no option but to submit application under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940

Period of contract had already expired and there was a dispute which required resolution and that resolution could be made as per provisions of arbitration agreement, within which respondents/plaintiffs submitted their claim/dispute to Project Manager/Engineer but not fruitful result came out or no decision was made by Project Manager/Engineer

Petitioners / defendants through application under S.33 of Arbitration Act, 1940, intended to decide matter as the same could not be agitated before any forum

Administration of justice required that decision between parties pertaining to dispute should be decided on merits and after proper application of mind, in accordance with law, rather than to be decided on technical grounds

Petitioners/defendants had taken hyper-technical grounds in their application, which application was to be decided along with application under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Proceedings before Election Tribunal are judicial in nature as it determines rights of a party through inquiry, recording of evidence in appropriate cases and to decide election disputes after hearing parties judicially in accordance with law.

Remedy for aggrieved party affected by other offences committed by same party who has contravened S. 3(1) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is also provided in S. 3(2) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

When an offence in respect of moveable property or any other offence is also committed during course of an offence punishable under S. 3(2) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, then for such other offence, accused can be charged and tried separately

Accused even after conviction can be tried for other offences

Such trial is protected by S. 403(4), Cr.P.C.

Plea raised by petitioner was that without constituting Medical Board, Trial Court had declined to declare her husband as lunatic

Validity

Trial Court made its own assessment of accused who had been appearing before it on a regular basis and was not of such unsoundness of mind and incapable to make his defence

Order passed by Trial Court was both a detailed and speaking order and it had attended all relevant issues

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Trial Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Principles of natural justice require that a party who is to be prejudiced by an order of arbitrator should be heard first.

Term proceedings was a compendious term and included all or any causes which were brought before the courts and on which the courts could undertake judicial proceedings

Term "proceedings" included every step taken towards further progress of a case in a Court or Tribunal, from its commencement till its disposal.

For grant of bail, available material was to be considered tentatively only, which could not influence the decision of the case on merits.

Court, before proceeding against the alleged contemnors had to be satisfied as to whether the alleged contemnors had done any act coming within the mischief of law of contempt

When the petitioner was unable to satisfy the court as to the maintainability of the contempt application, such application was not maintainable which was dismissed in circumstances.

Power to initiate proceedings of contempt should be used sparingly and court should exercise judicial restraint as long as possible

Such power should always be exercised cautiously, wisely and with circumspection.

Only course open for the Police by virtue of S.155(1), Cr.P.C., was to enter the received information in a book and refer it to the Judicial Magistrate, or at the most the complainant could redress his grievance under S.200, Cr.P.C.

In the present case, both the remedies available to the complainant, were not adhered to; and recourse had been made to a line of action contrary to the provisions of law

If a Police Officer would investigate a case of non-cognizable offence, without permission of a Magistrate, his act would amount to blatant violation of the mandatory direction of law; and its continuation would be an abuse of process of law.

If an accused is acquitted by Court of law, punitive action can be taken against him on departmental side and vice versa.

Appellate Tribunal is the first independent forum outside the department to decide rights and liabilities of taxpayer as well as safeguarding the interests of exchequer

Proceedings before Appellate Tribunal are judicial proceedings

Appellate Tribunal has the power to stay recovery of tax under relevant statute or increase burden of liability.

Appellate Tribunal is the first independent forum outside the department to decide rights and liabilities of taxpayer as well as safeguarding the interests of exchequer

Proceedings before Appellate Tribunal are judicial proceedings

Appellate Tribunal has the power to stay recovery of tax under relevant statute or increase burden of liability.

Under S.67(1A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, Election Tribunal shall proceed with the Election petitions on day to day basis and decision thereof shall be taken within four months from its receipt

Speedy trial of an Election petition with regard to election disputes, was essential.

Connotation.

Petitioners were banking companies and were aggrieved of notices issued by authorities for initiation of proceedings on the allegation of non-deduction of taxes

Validity

If Commissioner was to take action under S. 161 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and the amount from which deduction had to be made was relatable to deducting authority's income then any such action taken beyond the period up to which deducting authority had to maintain its books of account etc., under S.174 of Income Tax Ordinance , 2001, required proper justification

Onus then would be on the Commissioner to explain as to why action was being taken belatedly

If there was proper justification, then onus was discharged and action could be sustainable in law

If there was no proper justification, then onus would not be discharged and action was liable to be set aside

Time fixed for purposes of S. 174 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, provided necessary dividing time line, as beyond such time deducting authority / taxpayer was not under any obligation to maintain books of account etc.

If Inland Revenue Department, in the present case, had been so minded, it could have taken action in question much earlier and well before the period stipulated in S. 174 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, had elapsed

Authorities did not do so and no proper justification was provided for belated action, onus that was on the Department, had not been discharged

Actions of authorities in question were not barred by limitation but the Department had failed to cross threshold of time related limiting factor

Actions in question were not sustainable and exercise of statutory power conferred by S. 161 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was unlawful

High Court set aside notices and all proceedings taken on the basis thereof, including all orders made thereon or with reference thereto and the same were quashed

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Object of contempt proceedings was not to afford protection to the Judges personally from imputations to which they might be exposed as individuals; but to keep the course of justice free and to ensure that law and order prevailed in the courts.

Proceedings under public interest litigation is inquisitorial in nature where the court may even delve into fact finding so as to promote public interest-Proceedings which are initiated as public interest litigation in civil or criminal matters cannot be treated as "adversial" because of the definition of nature of the proceedings where without contest between the parties a final finding has to be recorded.

Accused was a police official and allegation against him was that he failed to carry out an order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace

Ex­ officio Justice of Peace convicted the accused and sentenced him for imprisonment for ten, days

Conviction and sentence awarded by Ex-officio Justice of Peace was maintained by High Court

Validity

Proceedings conducted. by Ex-officio Justice of Peace were not judicial proceedings, therefore, conviction and sentence recorded for an offence under S. 228, P.P.C. were illegal and unsustainable

Provisions of S.228, P.P.C. were attracted to an insult or interruption during some judicial proceedings and no such insult or interruption during any judicial proceeding had been alleged against accused

Only allegation against accused was that he had failed to carry out any order passed on an earlier occasion by Ex-officio Justice of Peace

Supreme Court set 'aside the conviction and sentence awarded to accused by the courts below and he was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

In general parlance, all happenings and events before a Tribunal or any authority on whom jurisdiction was conferred by law to dispose of, contentious matter were covered by the term "proceedings".

Accused was Investigating Officer of a criminal case and F.I.R. under S.193 P.P.C. was registered against him for recording a false statement of a witness during the investigation

Validity

Action under S.193 P.P.C. could only be taken against any person after conclusion of trial

Any action taken during trial or at investigation stage would be violative of law

Neither accused had given any false statement on oath before any court of law nor he resiled from any previous statement made by him

Accused as an Investigating Officer had only recorded a statement of witness under S.161, Cr.P.C. and mere recording of statement given by witness did not in any way constitute an offence punishable under S.193, P.P.C., nor it was scheme of law to launch a prosecution of perjury against any person before conclusion of trial

Trial against the accused had not even commenced and the case was at investigation stage

Chief Court should have differentiated investigation and trial before taking any action or giving its findings

Chief Court did not appreciate relevant provision of law properly and had pre-determined guilt of accused

Judgment passed by Chief Court was set aside and F.I. R. against accused was quashed

Appeal was allowed.

Award against applicant was given by Judicial Officer under S.7 of Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993

Applicant asserted that Inquiry Officer had not appeared during the proceedings

Respondents had produced General Manager Recovery and other member in support of the inquiry report

Inquiry Officer had died during the year 2005 and the other member of the society had identified the signature of the Inquiry Officer on inquiry report

Judicial Officer had passed the impugned Award on the valid reasons being supported by the evidence on the record as well as facts and circumstances of the case

Cooperative Judge dismissed the application having no merits.

Amendment sought was an afterthought and amounted to change the entire pleadings by bringing new plea in defence and the same could not be allowed at such stage

No amendment could be allowed which would change the nature of the pleadings and bring new'grounds and documents that were available before and could be pleaded at the first instance

Rent Controller had rightly dismissed the application as through the amendment the tenant intended to introduce new facts to change the entire complexion of the pleadings

Tenant should have introduced the facts and documents which were with him and had not been procured or acquired at a subsequent date

No plausible ground was given by the tenant in the application as to why the documents or grounds were not taken up at the time of the filing of the objections at the initial stage

High Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the Rent Controller in circumstances.

Civil servant would not cease to be a civil servant and he would continue to be a civil servant for all purposes unless it had been established otherwise

Just because civil servant had been proceeded against under a wrong provision of law, would not affect his status as a civil servant.

Industrial Tribunal-Proceedings-Transfer of pending proceedings from one Tribunal to another-Applicability of sections 21 and 22, General Clauses Act (X of' 1897)-Transfer without stating reasons- Validity-Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947), S. 33-B.

Examination of witnesses without administering oath-Statement whether can be taken into account-Appeal to Appellate Assistant Commissioner-Appellate Assistant Commissioner disregarding affidavits filed by witnesses-Propriety.

Proceedings Proceedings before High Court-Evidence led relating to matters disclosure of which might be fraught with grave consequences to State-Inquiry under the Public and Representative Offices (Disqualification) Act, 1949, against an ex-Minister-High Court has power to restrict publication of proceedings in Press-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1899), S. 352.