Service Appeal

2026 PLC(CS) 169 PUNJAB-SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

S.5Judicial Officers' Protection Act (XVIII of 1850), S. 1Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 75Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, R.3Service appealJudicial OfficerCharge of misconduct

Granting of post arrest bail on the basis of fake report of Chemical Examiner in deviation of prescribed procedure for Judicial Officers

Effect

Imposition of penalty of dismissal from service

Protection against inadvertent mistakes in judicial acts/order

Scope

Contention of the appellant was that no penalty could be imposed upon him for the reasons that he had been exonerated by the Hearing Officer and being judicial officer he was constitutionally and legally protected for judicially committed inadvertent mistake

Validity

Appellant cross-examined the Investigating Officer (I.O) during the inquiry and suggestions put by him to the I.O. had established that the appellant was hand in glove with the accused of the case

Appellant had privately been briefed by the said accused

Findings of the Hearing Officer qua exoneration of the appellant rest the premises that fake report was placed on the record by the I.O. and as such, there was no fault on the part of the appellant but the said findings were not supported by the record, as well as by the proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer because evidence/documents brought on the record during the inquiry had not been considered and properly appreciated by the Hearing Officer, thus, the Authority imposed major penalty of dismissal from service upon the appellant

Three elements had conjoined i.e. the appellant passed a judicial order in deviation of prescribed procedure in the Circular and express mandate of CNSA; the appellant passed judicial order with mala fide intent for extraneous considerations which was proved on record in terms that the appellant was in close contact with the accused persons, who were beneficiary of bail granting order and the appellant had acquired a general reputation of being corrupt

Such elements taken together proved the charge against the appellant and swayed the authority to impose the major penalty of dismissal from service upon him

Principle of according protection to judicial orders is well entrenched in our jurisprudence provided they are passed in good faith without an element of mala fide, however, there is no concept of complete and absolute immunity if extraneous considerations are vividly established

Service appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2025 SCMR 532 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 4Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 189Service appealStare decisis and precedentDistinction

Authorities were aggrieved of judgment passed by Service Tribunal in violation of the principle already laid down by Supreme Court

Effect

Doctrine of stare decisis, is a Latin term that connotes "let the decision stand" or "to stand by things decided"

Law declared by Supreme Court should be certain, translucent and rational, as most decisions not only constitute a determination of rights of parties but also set down a declaration of law that serves as binding principles in future cases, thereby contributing to development of jurisprudence

Doctrine of precedents, vis-à-vis stare decisis has fundamental value in ensuring an objective certitude and firmness in legal system

Rule of adherence to judicial precedents finds it expression in the doctrine of stare decisis, which posits that when a point or principle of law has officially been decided or settled by ruling of a competent Court in a case where it was directly and necessarily involved, it should no longer be considered as open to re-examination or to a new ruling

Such policy of Courts is conveniently termed as doctrine of stare decisis

Rational behind such policy is the need to promote certainty, stability and predictability in law

Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal as the same was passed against the law settled by Supreme Court

Appeal was allowed.

2025 SCMR 489 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 4Service appealAbsence without leaveAppellate jurisdiction, exercise ofPre-conditionsRespondent/civil servant remained absent from duty without leave and was proceed against departmentallyAuthorities imposed major penalty of reduction to lower postService Tribunal allowed appeal filed by respondent/civil servant and set aside the penaltyValidity

While exercising appellate jurisdiction under the provisions of Service Tribunals Acts the first and foremost duty is to thoroughly examine all facts of the case and diligently address all factual and legal pleas raised by parties, and then decide whether proceedings for misconduct, initiated through show cause notice and statement of allegations, have duly been proved or not

In case penalty is imposed as a result of a regular inquiry, it is also necessary to examine inquiry proceedings and inquiry report, along with recommendations forwarded by inquiry officer/inquiry committee to competent authority for further action in accordance with law

In service appeals challenging minor or major penalties imposed upon civil servants, core issue is to evaluate gravity of charges and proof of guilt of delinquent during inquiry

Without adverting to inquiry proceedings and report, it would not be possible for Service Tribunal to reach a just and proper conclusion

Merely treating period of absence without pay in cases where punishments are imposed by competent authority other than dismissal/removal from service neither exonerate respondent from charge of misconduct nor act of misconduct is vanished on such count alone

In the present case such benefit was accorded by taking a lenient view to avoid breakup in the length of service only which did not amount to exoneration from period of absence

Supreme Court set aside order passed by Service Tribunal and service appeal filed by respondent / civil servant was dismissed

Appeal was allowed.

2025 PLC(CS) 583 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 4Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 189Service appealStare decisis and precedentDistinction

Authorities were aggrieved of judgment passed by Service Tribunal in violation of the principle already laid down by Supreme Court

Effect

Doctrine of stare decisis, is a Latin term that connotes "let the decision stand" or "to stand by things decided"

Law declared by Supreme Court should be certain, translucent and rational, as most decisions not only constitute a determination of rights of parties but also set down a declaration of law that serves as binding principles in future cases, thereby contributing to development of jurisprudence

Doctrine of precedents, vis-à-vis stare decisis has fundamental value in ensuring an objective certitude and firmness in legal system

Rule of adherence to judicial precedents finds it expression in the doctrine of stare decisis, which posits that when a point or principle of law has officially been decided or settled by ruling of a competent Court in a case where it was directly and necessarily involved, it should no longer be considered as open to re-examination or to a new ruling

Such policy of Courts is conveniently termed as doctrine of stare decisis

Rationale behind such policy is the need to promote certainty, stability and predictability in law

Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal as the same was passed against the law settled by Supreme Court

Appeal was allowed.

2025 PLC(CS) 549 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 4Service appealAbsence without leaveAppellate jurisdiction, exercise ofPre-conditionsRespondent/civil servant remained absent from duty without leave and was proceed against departmentallyAuthorities imposed major penalty of reduction to lower postService Tribunal allowed appeal filed by respondent/civil servant and set aside the penaltyValidity

While exercising appellate jurisdiction under the provisions of Service Tribunals Acts the first and foremost duty is to thoroughly examine all facts of the case and diligently address all factual and legal pleas raised by parties, and then decide whether proceedings for misconduct, initiated through show cause notice and statement of allegations, have duly been proved or not

In case penalty is imposed as a result of a regular inquiry, it is also necessary to examine inquiry proceedings and inquiry report, along with recommendations forwarded by inquiry officer/inquiry committee to competent authority for further action in accordance with law

In service appeals challenging minor or major penalties imposed upon civil servants, core issue is to evaluate gravity of charges and proof of guilt of delinquent during inquiry

Without adverting to inquiry proceedings and report, it would not be possible for Service Tribunal to reach a just and proper conclusion

Merely treating period of absence without pay in cases where punishments are imposed by competent authority other than dismissal/removal from service neither exonerate respondent from charge of misconduct nor act of misconduct is vanished on such count alone

In the present case such benefit was accorded by taking a lenient view to avoid breakup in the length of service only which did not amount to exoneration from period of absence

Supreme Court set aside order passed by Service Tribunal and service appeal filed by respondent / civil servant was dismissed

Appeal was allowed.

2025 PLC(CS) 669 PUNJAB-SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

S. 5Judicial officerService appealAllegation of corruption and ill-reputeRecording of adverse remarksPenalty of removal from serviceLong serviceMitigating circumstancesQuantum of punishmentPrinciple of proportionalityConversion of penalty

P.W. 4 during his examination-in-chief stated that appellant did not receive even a penny and during his cross-examination he denied his signature on the complaint and disowned its contents

P.W.5 during his cross-examination stated that he had not personally paid any illegal gratification to the appellant and could not identify the official, who allegedly demanded the illegal gratification

Charge of receiving illegal gratification had not been proved against the appellant, however, allegations of corruption and ill-repute remained on record

Owing to mitigating circumstances and analyzing different factors the penalty of removal from service was converted into compulsory retirement

Courts have consistently emphasized the importance of considering the employee's length of service, the nature of the offence and the context surrounding the misconduct

A fair and just approach to disciplinary actions is essential in maintaining morale and ensuring that penalties are proportionate to the offences committed

Penalty of removal from service was not proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved against the appellant, thus, the same was converted into compulsory retirement

Appeal was partly allowed, in circumstances.

2024 PLC(CS) 53 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.2Constitution of Pakistan, Art.212(2)Constitutional petitionService appealJurisdiction of Supreme CourtPrinciplePetitioner / civil servant invoked jurisdiction of Provincial Service Tribunal with regard to seniority list

Petitioner / civil servant assailed judgment passed by Provincial Service Tribunal before High Court in constitutional jurisdiction

Plea raised by petitioner / civil servant was that under proviso to Art. 212(2) of the Constitution, direct appeal to Supreme Court could only be made when the Parliament had extended provisions of Art. 212(2) of the Constitution to such Court or Tribunal established under an Act of Provincial Assembly

Validity

Any Administrative Court or Tribunal established under an Act of a Provincial Assembly had come under the purview of Art. 212(2) of the Constitution when Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) had given its approval and enacted necessary legislation for extension of provisions of Art.212(2) of the Constitution to such Court or Tribunal and that too on the request / resolution of Provincial Assembly

If both the stages had surpassed, the proviso to Art. 212(2) of the Constitution would become applicable and its effect was the same as that of Federal Legislation, so all judicial remedies were closed and the only avenue left open for redressal was an appeal to Supreme Court in terms of Art.212(3) of the Constitution

High Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Service Tribunal

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2024 CLD 956 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.11Employee of a private bankService appealState Bank of Pakistan, jurisdiction ofAppellant was dismissed from service and her appeal was not entertained by State Bank of PakistanValidityState Bank of Pakistan did not have jurisdiction to hear and decide service matters of employees of banksWhere jurisdiction was not vested by law, Courts could not confer such jurisdiction on any authorityJurisdiction could not be conferred by parties even by consent

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court as there was no illegality, jurisdictional defect or mis-reading of record and was well reasoned

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2024 PLC 170 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.11Employee of a private bankService appealState Bank of Pakistan, jurisdiction ofAppellant was dismissed from service and her appeal was not entertained by State Bank of PakistanValidityState Bank of Pakistan did not have jurisdiction to hear and decide service matters of employees of banksWhere jurisdiction was not vested by law, Courts could not confer such jurisdiction on any authorityJurisdiction could not be conferred by parties even by consent

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court as there was no illegality, jurisdictional defect or mis-reading of record and was well reasoned

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2016 PLC(CS) 666 PUNJAB-SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

S. 5Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (XII of 1991), S.5Service appealLimitationCondonation of delaySufficient causeScopeNegligence and slackness

Condonation of delay in filing service appeal had been sought on the ground that counsel engaged by the applicant was a patient of "gout" and during Eid vacations he suffered from swelling of joints

Validity

"Sufficient cause" would be a cause beyond control of the party and same would rule out inaction, culpable slackness and negligence

Want of due care would be sufficient to non-suit the party seeking indulgence of sufficient cause

Party seeking condonation of delay had to explain each day's delay after expiry of period of appeal

Contents of application as well as affidavit were silent with regard to number of Eid holidays and commencement of the same

Appeal, in the present case, was prepared on 2nd of October, 2009 while Eid holidays were 21st and 22nd September

Appeal was ready for filing prior to Eid-ul-Fitr

Affidavits were sworn by the applicant before the Oath Commissioner on 19th of September, 2009 which was Saturday

Ample time was available with the applicant to prefer appeal in the office but no attempt was made to submit the same

Actual and physical presence of counsel for the appellant was not necessary for filing of appeal

Anyone could have filed the appeal in the office

Nothing was on record to suggest that counsel for the applicant intimated to him the compelling circumstances for non-filing of appeal though time was running and ultimately it expired

Applicant was bound to remain in touch with his counsel

Element of want of care and attention would amount to negligence and carelessness ruling out bona fide and due diligence

Date of recovery of counsel for the applicant from ailment had not been mentioned either in the application or in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay

Such omission would be sufficient to non-suit the applicant

Contents of application that appeal was promptly filed without wastage of time after recovery of counsel would not be sufficient to prove the case of applicant

Date of recovery from illness was an important factor in order to determine each day's delay

Applicant had failed to disclose the same

Applicant had not explained each day's delay which was necessary

Applicant was bound to prove that he or any person acting on his behalf was not negligent

Applicant had failed to prove that non-filing of appeal within the statutory period was result of an act or omission beyond his control or person acting on his behalf

Mere involvement of valuable right by itself would not be sufficient to condone the delay

Question of limitation was not a mere technicality and same could not be ignored

Applicant had failed to prove sufficient cause seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal

Application for condonation of delay and appeal were dismissed being time barred.

2015 PLC(CS) 1442 FEDERAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4, 5(2) & 2-A [since repealed]Balochistan Service Tribunals (Appeal) Rules, 2013, R.9(4)Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXII, Rr.1 & 11Service appealDeath of civil servant during pendency of service appealLegal heirs, impleadment ofScopeAbatemennt of appealScopeWords "right to sue"Inheritable rightTerms and conditions of serviceScope

Vested and substantive rights should be decided according to law which was prevalent when the action was initiated and the door of the court was knocked and/or machinery of the court was set in motion

Service appeals which were filed before Service Tribunal prior to repeal/omission of S.2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 should be deemed to be pending before it and same should be decided according to law which was in field at the commencement of the lis

Petitions filed by the legal heirs of deceased employees could not be dismissed summarily on the ground of repeal of S.2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973

Legal heirs of a deceased civil servant could not file a fresh appeal in Service Tribunal

No provision existed in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 that upon the death of civil servant his appeal would abate

Term "right to sue" would refer to the right to seek the same relief which the deceased civil servant was seeking at the time of his death

Service appeal might be continued by the legal representatives of deceased civil servant to the extent of inheritable rights where the cause of action survived

All rights of action existing in favour of a person would survive except personal actions connected with the individuality of the deceased civil servant

Personal right of actions would die with the person

Civil servant could knock the door of Service Tribunal whenever he was aggrieved of an order with regard to terms and conditions of his service

Terms and conditions of service would include pay, promotion, allowances, pension and seniority

Financial benefits would be inheritable which would devolve upon the legal heirs of deceased civil servant

Legal heirs of a deceased civil servant could pursue the service appeal filed by his predecessor-in-interest provided that the benefits likely to accrue on the acceptance of such an appeal were admissible to such legal heirs under the rules

Order XXII, Rr.1 & 11, C.P.C. did not provide the abatement of a suit/appeal on the death of plaintiff/appellant if the right to sue survived

Deceased civil servants had filed service appeals before the Service Tribunal with regard to the terms and conditions of services which entailed financial benefits inheritable by their legal heirs upon their death

Legal heirs of deceased civil servants were entitled to be impleaded as party to pursue their cases to the logical conclusion

If right to sue survived then an appeal would not be abated on the death of a party

Legal heirs of a civil servant could be impleaded as a party to the appeal filed by their predecessor-in-interest with regard to terms and conditions of service entailing financial benefits which were inheritable by them on the demise of civil servant

Petitions for impleadment of legal heirs of civil servants were accepted in circumstances.

1986 SCMR 571 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 212(3)Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4(1)-JurisdictionWest Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), Ss.17(1-A) & (1-C)

Leave to appeal granted to examine ouster of jurisdiction contained in S.17(1-C) of Act (X,X&I of 1958) and its effect on jurisdiction of Service Tribunal to deal with matters arising out of orders passed under S.17(1-A) of Act.

[Jurisdiction]. 4(1)

West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), Ss.17(1-A) & (1-C)

Service appeals

Ouster of jurisdiction

Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of service appeals arising out of orders passed under S.17(1-A) of Act (XXXI of 1958).

[Jurisdiction].

1985 SCMR 1070 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 212(3)Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4Service appealExpunction of adverse entries in A.C.R.Order of Tribunal impugnedFinding of fact recorded by Tribunal after perusing record of department, maintained

Leave to appeal refused.

1982 SCMR 537 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

R. 8.15 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212-Service appeal-Petitioner censured for remaining absent without leave and period of absence treated as leave without pay - Petitioner not challenging order of censure but filing appeal against order treating his absence as leave without pay-Rule 8.15, held, of no avail to petitioner and no substantial question of public importance being raised, case not fit for interference under Art. 212 of Constitution.-[Civil services].