Dismissal from Service

Appellant, who was serving as District Officer, was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect without affording him an opportunity of personal hearing on 3 main allegations; that furniture purchased was substandard; that material was not complete according to the list within the given time; and no action was taken against the firm which supplied the substandard furniture

Held, in the presence of Technical Expert, responsibility of appellant about the items in question was considerably decreased

Appellant had taken all punitive measures possible within his means against the defaulting supplier firms

No charge-sheet accompanied by the statement of allegations had been framed nor communicated to appellant, whereas framing of charges was not only a formality, but a mandatory requirement of law

Major penalty of dismissal from service had been imposed on appellant without instituting a regular inquiry within the terms of relevant law

Appellant had been straightaway issued a show-cause notice

Appellant had along spotless service of 24 years and the charges levelled against him had not been proved

Appeal against order of dismissal from service of appellant was accepted, impugned order was set aside

Department was directed to reinstate appellant from date of his dismissal from services with all back-benefits within a period of one month.

Where the sole allegation in the departmental proceedings is that the civil servant has been involved in, or is facing, a criminal case, and no independent and probe-able act of misconduct is alleged, the acquittal of the civil servant in the criminal case removes the very substratum of the departmental charge

The disciplinary machinery cannot stand on its own in such circumstances because there exists no stand-alone allegation that the department can independently inquire into or establish through departmental evidence

The charge of “involvement in a criminal case” is, by its very nature, incapable of departmental proof, it belongs exclusively to the criminal forum

Once the criminal court has adjudged the civil servant not guilty on the same accusation, the departmental authority is left with nothing to determine; the entire charge falls to the ground.

Departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings, though sometimes arising out of the same set of facts, operate indistinct legal domains and are governed by different standards of proof

The disciplinary inquiry is founded on the preponderance of probability, aimed at preserving the integrity and efficiency of public service, whereas a criminal trial proceeds on the stricter standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, intended to determine penalliability

Consequently, the pendency or outcome of one does not automatically affect the other, and both may lawfully proceed concurrently.

Briefly, the petitioner, who was a Police Constable (BPS-07), was nominated in a FIR registered under sections 302, 311, 147 and 148 P.P.C., whereupon departmental proceedings were initiated against him under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, leading to his dismissal from service

Upon preferring appeal, he was provisionally reinstated with directions for a de novo inquiry, during which period he was acquitted in the criminal case, yet upon conclusion of the de novo inquiry he was again dismissed from service, with his departmental appeal, revision, and subsequent appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal being dismissed, culminating in the filing of the present civil petition before the Supreme Court, raising the legal issue “whether a major penalty of dismissal could lawfully be sustained where departmental action was founded solely on the employee's involvement in a criminal case, notwithstanding his acquittal therein, and where no independent departmental misconduct was examined or established?”

Held: It had been a settled law that where departmental proceedings rested on independent and probe-able evidence of misconduct, an acquittal in the criminal case did not absolve the employee, and both proceedings could lawfully be run concurrently

However, where the departmental action was founded solely on the registration or pendency of an FIR, without any distinct charge of misconduct, the employee's subsequent acquittal extinguished that foundation, rendering any ensuing penalty legally untenable and constitutionally infirm

Impugned judgment was set aside as well as the order of dismissal of the petitioner and as a result he was re-instated into service

Petition was converted into appeal and allowed, in circumstances.

Major penalty of dismissal from service cannot be awarded without conducting regular inquiry or providing opportunity of being heard to a civil servant, as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.

Service Tribunal partly accepted appeal of civil servant / respondent and converted punishment of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement

Validity

While imposing any major or minor penalty regular inquiry has to be conducted to establish charges against a civil servant, unless it is dispensed with, while disclosing sufficient reason in writing in terms of Rule 5(iii) of Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973

Law does not permit dispensation of regular inquiry even in cases where minor penalty is imposed unless there are sufficient reasons disclosed by competent authority for dispensation of regular inquiry

In order to ensure transparency and fair trial in departmental proceedings against a civil servant, adherence to law, rules and procedure prescribed therein must be made in letter and spirit

Fair trial is sine qua non as guaranteed under Article 10(A) of the Constitution, which has to be read into every statute, including Civil Servants Act, 1973, and cannot be ignored under any circumstances, irrespective of the fact that penalty imposed against a civil servant pursuant to such proceedings is major or minor in nature

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Service Tribunal which did not suffer from any factual error or legal infirmity

Authorities failed to raise any substantial question of law of public importance in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Though the employer would be at liberty to conduct proper inquiry into the allegations against the employee.

Major penalty of dismissal from service cannot be awarded without conducting regular inquiry or providing opportunity of being heard to a civil servant, as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice

Judgment passed by Service Tribunal and orders of lower fora were contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice as no regular inquiry was conducted while imposing major penalty of dismissal from service, whereas, no opportunity of being heard had been provided to appellant / civil servant

Supreme Court directed the authorities to reinstate appellant/ civil servant into service and set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal

Supreme Court remanded the matter to departmental authority to conduct de novo inquiry into the allegations levelled against appellant / civil servant while providing him sufficient opportunity of being heard in terms of sections 9 and 10 of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006

Appeal was allowed.

Petitioner/civil servant remained absent from service and was proceeded against departmentally and was dismissed from service

Penalty imposed by authorities was maintained by Service Tribunal

Validity

Tribunal or Court intervenes due to severity or nature of penalty imposed by competent authority by considering it unreasonable, perverse, excessively harsh, or by exercising leniency

Such interference is based on conclusion that penalty is disproportionate to proven misconduct as determined through test of proportionality

Interference with penalty imposed by department must be approached with caution and careful consideration, reserved for cases where order is entirely perverse or so clearly disproportionate and excessive to the misconduct that allowing it to stand would be unfair, unjust, and inequitable

Petitioner/civil servant was repeatedly served and called to present his defence but chose not to, particularly in the appeal and the revision which he himself filed yet failed to appear in or tender his defence

Cases of willful absence from duty are fairly straightforward as government officers who deliberately are absent from duty without permission are aware of the fact that they would be proceeded against for their absence from duty

Legal issue may qualify as a substantial question of law of public importance if it; (i) requires interpretation of law, rules, instructions, notifications or governmental policy; (ii) remains unresolved by Supreme Court or is subject to ambiguity, conflicting interpretations, or requires a discussion of alternative perspectives; (iii) exposes a lack of clarity in law, particularly where contradictory judicial precedents exist; or (iv) reveals a serious violation of due process that affects fundamental rights or procedural fairness under the Constitution

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Service Tribunal as petitioner/civil servant failed to raise any substantial question of law of public importance

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

In the show cause notice the allegation of absence from duty was raised, but based on the same show cause notice, the Tribunal reproduced some other allegations regarding the petitioner's conviction in a criminal case, which allegation was alien to the show cause notice, and no other show cause notice was presented by the parties that indicated any allegation of conviction in a criminal case or requested the petitioner to submit a reply

Departmental proceedings may be initiated on the basis of allegations contained in the show cause notice and not on the allegations which were never part of the show cause notice

Therefore, in all fairness, the departmental action on account of any misconduct should be confined to the allegations mentioned in the show cause notice/statement of allegations, and should not travel beyond its precinct because the accused of misconduct who is petitioner in this case was only liable to answer the allegations communicated to him in the show cause and had no supernatural knowledge to respond to the allegations not known to him

Even the holding of the enquiry was claimed to be a regular one, but it was actually conducted ex-parte without involving the petitioner or providing him any opportunity to defend himself

According to the latest position, the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case while being extended the benefit of doubt by the Trial Court

Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed; consequently, the impugned judgment was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Service Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law.

Petitioner, after rendering services for fifteen years, was dismissed on account of defect in his initial appointment, and salaries received by him were also held recoverable

Validity

Though a public employment secured through misrepresentation or tampered credentials is void ab initio and confers no vested right upon the appointee, nonetheless, the issue of retrospective salary recovery for services rendered over a significant period engages broader principles of fairness, equity, and administrative accountability

In the present case, after fifteen years of continuous and uninterrupted service of petitioner, the Department initiated an inquiry into educational credentials of the petitioner

There is no material on record to show that the petitioner deliberately concealed or suppressed his academic record during this time or resisted verification

On the contrary, service of the petitioner was accepted, utilized, and remunerated without demur or objection

Petitioner had indeed discharged all assigned responsibilities without lapse

In such circumstances, the employer having accepted and benefited from fifteen years of unblemished service cannot now seek restitution of benefits already consumed

Principles of equity, good conscience, and public interest dictate that in the absence of fraud or dishonest conduct by the employee, retrospective recovery of wages is unjust

The recovery of salary for services lawfully and diligently performed is impermissible, notwithstanding defects in the initial appointment

Thus, the order for recovery in the present case is arbitrary, excessive, and in clear violation of equitable principles

Supreme Court set-aside the impugned judgment to the extent of recovery of salary from the petitioner, however, the petitioner's dismissal from service, on account of ineligibility at the time of appointment, would remain intact

Petition was converted into an appeal and was partially allowed accordingly.

Petitioner, after rendering services for fifteen years, was dismissed on account of defect in his initial appointment, and salaries received by him were also held recoverable

Validity

The doctrine of administrative acquiescence rooted in principles of equity and fairness, which (doctrine) is based on the idea that if a person, observing another about to perform an act that might infringe upon their rights, remains silent in circumstances where an objection might have prevented the act, they may later be estopped from objecting

Transposed to public law, it implies that prolonged inaction or silence by a public authority, particularly where it had the duty and opportunity to act may amount to institutional acquiescence

In such cases, the authority's delay in enforcing its rights or correcting an irregularity can defeat retrospective punitive action, especially where the individual affected has acted in good faith and to the authority's benefit throughout

The prolonged inaction by the department, its failure to undertake any meaningful verification or scrutiny of the petitioner's appointment for fifteen years amounted to institutional negligence

Significantly, it was only after the passage of fifteen years that the department initiated an inquiry into the petitioner's appointment

Said belated action, without any intervening misconduct by the petitioner, underscored that the lapse lies entirely with the department

Administrative silence over such an extended period, particularly where it results in the receipt and acceptance of services, may amount to acquiescence and estop the department from seeking retrospective punitive measures

Petitioner could not be faulted for the department's own dereliction of its gatekeeping responsibilities

While the eventual termination of service due to irregular appointment may be legally sustainable, the direction for recovery of fifteen years' salary without any allegation or proof of fraud or mala fide intent on the part of the petitioner was manifestly disproportionate, inequitable, and legally untenable

The recovery of salary for services lawfully and diligently performed was impermissible, notwithstanding defects in the initial appointment

Thus, the order for recovery in the present case was arbitrary, excessive, and in clear violation of equitable principles

Supreme Court set-aside the impugned judgment to the extent of recovery of salary from the petitioner, however, the petitioner's dismissal from service, on account of ineligibility at the time of appointment, would remain intact

Petition was converted into an appeal and was partially allowed accordingly.

Petitioner, after rendering services for fifteen years, was dismissed on account of defect in his initial appointment, and salaries received by him were also held recoverable

Validity

In the present case, the doctrine of quantum meruit finds clear and compelling application

This equitable principle permits reasonable compensation for services rendered where one party has knowingly accepted and benefited from the work of another, even in the absence of a valid or enforceable contract

For over fifteen years, the petitioner continuously performed duties that fulfilled institutional needs and was compensated accordingly

To retrospectively invalidate such remuneration despite the employer's full knowledge and acceptance of the services rendered would be contrary to the fundamental tenet that no person should unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of another

In the present case, it was the employer/ Department that stood to benefit unjustly

Said principle finds statutory recognition under Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872

Therefore, even where an employment / appointment is found to be irregular, if the employee has continuously and faithfully discharged official functions and the employer has enjoyed the resulting benefit over a significant period, the doctrine of quantum meruit furnishes both a moral and legal basis to preclude retrospective recovery of salary

Labors that is not donated but knowingly accepted must be compensated regardless of technical infirmities in the appointment process

The recovery of salary for services lawfully and diligently performed is impermissible, notwithstanding defects in the initial appointment

Thus, the order for recovery in the present case was arbitrary, excessive, and in clear violation of equitable principles

Supreme Court set-aside the impugned judgment to the extent of recovery of salary from the petitioner, however, the petitioner's dismissal from service, on account of ineligibility at the time of appointment, would remain intact

Petition was converted into an appeal and was partially allowed accordingly.

Major penalty of dismissal from service cannot be awarded without conducting regular inquiry or providing opportunity of being heard to a civil servant, as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice

Judgment passed by Service Tribunal and orders of lower fora were contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice as no regular inquiry was conducted while imposing major penalty of dismissal from service, whereas, no opportunity of being heard had been provided to appellant / civil servant

Supreme Court directed the authorities to reinstate appellant/ civil servant into service and set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal

Supreme Court remanded the matter to departmental authority to conduct de novo inquiry into the allegations levelled against appellant / civil servant while providing him sufficient opportunity of being heard in terms of sections 9 and 10 of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006

Appeal was allowed.

Petitioner, after rendering services for fifteen years, was dismissed on account of defect in his initial appointment, and salaries received by him were also held recoverable

Validity

Though a public employment secured through misrepresentation or tampered credentials is void ab initio and confers no vested right upon the appointee, nonetheless, the issue of retrospective salary recovery for services rendered over a significant period engages broader principles of fairness, equity, and administrative accountability

In the present case, after fifteen years of continuous and uninterrupted service of petitioner, the Department initiated an inquiry into educational credentials of the petitioner

There is no material on record to show that the petitioner deliberately concealed or suppressed his academic record during this time or resisted verification

On the contrary, service of the petitioner was accepted, utilized, and remunerated without demur or objection

Petitioner had indeed discharged all assigned responsibilities without lapse

In such circumstances, the employer having accepted and benefited from fifteen years of unblemished service cannot now seek restitution of benefits already consumed

Principles of equity, good conscience, and public interest dictate that in the absence of fraud or dishonest conduct by the employee, retrospective recovery of wages is unjust

The recovery of salary for services lawfully and diligently performed is impermissible, notwithstanding defects in the initial appointment

Thus, the order for recovery in the present case is arbitrary, excessive, and in clear violation of equitable principles

Supreme Court set-aside the impugned judgment to the extent of recovery of salary from the petitioner, however, the petitioner's dismissal from service, on account of ineligibility at the time of appointment, would remain intact

Petition was converted into an appeal and was partially allowed accordingly.

Petitioner, after rendering services for fifteen years, was dismissed on account of defect in his initial appointment, and salaries received by him were also held recoverable

Validity

In the present case, the doctrine of quantum meruit finds clear and compelling application

This equitable principle permits reasonable compensation for services rendered where one party has knowingly accepted and benefited from the work of another, even in the absence of a valid or enforceable contract

For over fifteen years, the petitioner continuously performed duties that fulfilled institutional needs and was compensated accordingly

To retrospectively invalidate such remuneration despite the employer's full knowledge and acceptance of the services rendered would be contrary to the fundamental tenet that no person should unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of another

In the present case, it was the employer/ Department that stood to benefit unjustly

Said principle finds statutory recognition under Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872

Therefore, even where an employment / appointment is found to be irregular, if the employee has continuously and faithfully discharged official functions and the employer has enjoyed the resulting benefit over a significant period, the doctrine of quantum meruit furnishes both a moral and legal basis to preclude retrospective recovery of salary

Labours that is not donated but knowingly accepted must be compensated regardless of technical infirmities in the appointment process

The recovery of salary for services lawfully and diligently performed is impermissible, notwithstanding defects in the initial appointment

Thus, the order for recovery in the present case was arbitrary, excessive, and in clear violation of equitable principles

Supreme Court set-aside the impugned judgment to the extent of recovery of salary from the petitioner, however, the petitioner's dismissal from service, on account of ineligibility at the time of appointment, would remain intact

Petition was converted into an appeal and was partially allowed accordingly.

Petitioner, after rendering services for fifteen years, was dismissed on account of defect in his initial appointment, and salaries received by him were also held recoverable

Validity

The doctrine of administrative acquiescence rooted in principles of equity and fairness, which (doctrine) is based on the idea that if a person, observing another about to perform an act that might infringe upon their rights, remains silent in circumstances where an objection might have prevented the act, they may later be estopped from objecting

Transposed to public law, it implies that prolonged inaction or silence by a public authority, particularly where it had the duty and opportunity to act may amount to institutional acquiescence

In such cases, the authority's delay in enforcing its rights or correcting an irregularity can defeat retrospective punitive action, especially where the individual affected has acted in good faith and to the authority's benefit throughout

The prolonged inaction by the department, its failure to undertake any meaningful verification or scrutiny of the petitioner's appointment for fifteen years amounted to institutional negligence

Significantly, it was only after the passage of fifteen years that the department initiated an inquiry into the petitioner's appointment

Said belated action, without any intervening misconduct by the petitioner, underscored that the lapse lies entirely with the department

Administrative silence over such an extended period, particularly where it results in the receipt and acceptance of services, may amount to acquiescence and estop the department from seeking retrospective punitive measures

Petitioner could not be faulted for the department's own dereliction of its gatekeeping responsibilities

While the eventual termination of service due to irregular appointment may be legally sustainable, the direction for recovery of fifteen years' salary without any allegation or proof of fraud or mala fide intent on the part of the petitioner was manifestly disproportionate, inequitable, and legally untenable

The recovery of salary for services lawfully and diligently performed was impermissible, notwithstanding defects in the initial appointment

Thus, the order for recovery in the present case was arbitrary, excessive, and in clear violation of equitable principles

Supreme Court set-aside the impugned judgment to the extent of recovery of salary from the petitioner, however, the petitioner's dismissal from service, on account of ineligibility at the time of appointment, would remain intact

Petition was converted into an appeal and was partially allowed accordingly.

Petitioner/civil servant remained absent from service and was proceeded against departmentally and was dismissed from service

Penalty imposed by authorities was maintained by Service Tribunal

Validity

Tribunal or Court intervenes due to severity or nature of penalty imposed by competent authority by considering it unreasonable, perverse, excessively harsh, or by exercising leniency

Such interference is based on conclusion that penalty is disproportionate to proven misconduct as determined through test of proportionality

Interference with penalty imposed by department must be approached with caution and careful consideration, reserved for cases where order is entirely perverse or so clearly disproportionate and excessive to the misconduct that allowing it to stand would be unfair, unjust, and inequitable

Petitioner/civil servant was repeatedly served and called to present his defence but chose not to, particularly in the appeal and the revision which he himself filed yet failed to appear in or tender his defence

Cases of willful absence from duty are fairly straightforward as government officers who deliberately are absent from duty without permission are aware of the fact that they would be proceeded against for their absence from duty

Legal issue may qualify as a substantial question of law of public importance if it; (i) requires interpretation of law, rules, instructions, notifications or governmental policy; (ii) remains unresolved by Supreme Court or is subject to ambiguity, conflicting interpretations, or requires a discussion of alternative perspectives; (iii) exposes a lack of clarity in law, particularly where contradictory judicial precedents exist; or (iv) reveals a serious violation of due process that affects fundamental rights or procedural fairness under the Constitution

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Service Tribunal as petitioner/civil servant failed to raise any substantial question of law of public importance

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

In the show cause notice the allegation of absence from duty was raised, but based on the same show cause notice, the Tribunal reproduced some other allegations regarding the petitioner's conviction in a criminal case, which allegation was alien to the show cause notice, and no other show cause notice was presented by the parties that indicated any allegation of conviction in a criminal case or requested the petitioner to submit a reply

Departmental proceedings may be initiated on the basis of allegations contained in the show cause notice and not on the allegations which were never part of the show cause notice

Therefore, in all fairness, the departmental action on account of any misconduct should be confined to the allegations mentioned in the show cause notice/statement of allegations, and should not travel beyond its precinct because the accused of misconduct who is petitioner in this case was only liable to answer the allegations communicated to him in the show cause and had no supernatural knowledge to respond to the allegations not known to him

Even the holding of the enquiry was claimed to be a regular one, but it was actually conducted ex-parte without involving the petitioner or providing him any opportunity to defend himself

According to the latest position, the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case while being extended the benefit of doubt by the Trial Court

Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed; consequently, the impugned judgment was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Service Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law.

Petitioner while working as Cashier with the respondent-Bank was dismissed from service for a minor procedural error i.e. incorrectly dating a document, whereafter, he challenged his dismissal through various legal avenues and ultimately reached the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) in view of "Mubeen-us-Salam" case (PLD 2006 SC 602)

Single Bench of NIRC initially ruled in favor of the petitioner, however, the Full Bench of NIRC overturned that decision on account of time barred grievance and failure to serve grievance notice

Validity

Pursuant to Para. 109(c) of the "Mubeen-us-Salam" case (PLD 2006 SC 602), cases or proceedings not safeguarded or encompassed by the judgment were deemed to have abated

Aggrieved party should seek recourse to the competent forums for the redressal of their grievances within a stipulated period of 90 days, and the statutory limitation imposed by the respective laws shall not be operative against them until the expiration of the aforementioned period

Paragraph 109(e) articulated that the Service Tribunal should adjudicate pending cases under S. 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, in light of the preceding observations, however, if any of the cases fall within the purview of clause 'c' (ibid), a grace period of 90 days should be accorded to the aggrieved party to approach the competent forum for the redressal of its grievance, thus, the Federal Service Tribunal abated the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 14.5.2010, advising the petitioner to seek a remedy before the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, whereafter, the petitioner filed the Grievance Application before Labour Court, on 15.06.2010, afresh under the provision of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 2002, thereby falling within the stipulated 90-days' period

Hence, the findings of the Full Bench of the N.I.R.C regarding counting the period were erroneous and constituted a misreading of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan

Petitioner erroneously addressed his departmental appeal to the President of the respondent-Bank, however, despite the same being addressed to the President, it was entertained and adjudicated upon on its merits by the Vice President, who did not stated that it was erroneously addressed to the President, thus, the departmental appeal of the petitioner could be construed as a grievance notice

Respondent-bank had not furnished any substantive evidence to suggest that the mistake committed by the petitioner was intentional or premeditated for illicit gains

Such errors in routine work were plausible due to the exigencies of work and for such a minor infraction, the petitioner could not be subjected to the severe penalty of dismissal from service

Respondent bank had not incurred any financial loss

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Plea raised by appellant / judicial officer was that no regular inquiry was conducted against him during departmental proceedings

Validity

Appellant / judicial officer did not submit any representation envisaged by R. 6(3)(c) of Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999, against decision of Authority to dispense with an inquiry

Inquiry could be dispensed with where there was no dispute with respect to facts alleged against accused

Appellant / judicial officer in his reply to show cause notice disputed facts which had formed the basis of issuance of show cause notice to him

There was no separate order of Authority on record dispensing with conducting a regular inquiry against appellant / judicial officer

Show-cause notice listed the reasons which caused competent authority to take a prima facie view that appellant / judicial officer committed misconduct but they were not the reasons for dispensing with regular inquiry

Said reasons simply stated the allegations that were levelled against appellant / judicial officer and nothing more

Mandatory condition of recording reasons for dispensing with regular inquiry had not been fulfilled in departmental proceedings in question

High Court set aside order passed against appellant / judicial officer for non-recording of essential prerequisites for dispensing with regular inquiry and matter was remanded to competent authority for proceedings afresh

High Court declined to award back benefits as allegations against appellant / judicial officer were to be inquired into and his entitlement to back benefits would depend on the result of such proceedings

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Plea of the respondents (Police Department) was that acquittal from court would not constitute a bar to initiate further disciplinary proceedings against the civil servant as criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings against the civil servant were independent in nature having different consequences

Validity

Though a civil servant can be dismissed from service in disciplinary proceedings even after acquittal from the competent court if he is found guilty during inquiry, however, in the present case, the appellant had filed (present) service appeal after his acquittal from the court

Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal set-aside the impugned dismissal orders being invalid which were issued without following the proper procedure and reinstated the appellant to his post as FC in GB Police declaring him entitled to back benefits from the date of his dismissal

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Record revealed that the police department had also failed to prove the allegations of taking away of stolen property in criminal case against the appellant before the concerned Judicial Magistrate and the appellant had been acquitted from the charges leveled against him in criminal case and, admittedly, no appeal against the said acquittal order had been filed before any court yet

Thus, the acquittal order had also attained its finality on the same issue/allegation

Currently, two conflicting orders were in field, one order was acquittal from the charges by the Magistrate and another order was of dismissal of appellant from service by the IGP which had been made impugned in the service appeal

It is well settled rule that the court order takes precedence over the order of IGP

Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal set-aside the impugned dismissal orders being invalid which were issued without following the proper procedure and reinstated the appellant to his post as FC in GB Police declaring him entitled to back benefits from the date of his dismissal

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Respondents/Department had failed to establish that the appellant had committed misconduct by not producing supporting documentary evidence/proof as they had not attached any single piece of paper to substantiate and strengthen their arguments/contention raised in their para-wise comments

Similarly, the facts and grounds narrated in relevant paras of the impugned dismissal order were mere assertions without any proof

Hence, said grounds could not be taken into consideration because there was no documentary evidence available on case file

Even, no record of confessional statement of appellant, recovery memo(s), statement of alleged recovery witness, notice on case file regarding the hearing/personal hearing of the appellant before passing the impugned dismissal order was annexed with para-wise comments

Respondents/Department had miserably failed to present any documentary proof to substantiate their contention made in the para-wise comments and validate their arguments

Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal set-aside the impugned dismissal orders being invalid which were issued without following the proper procedure and reinstated the appellant to his post as FC in GB Police declaring him entitled to back benefits from the date of his dismissal

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Admittedly neither any right of personal hearing was afforded nor was any inquiry conducted to prove whether the petitioners secured their appointments lawfully or unlawfully or in a deceitful manner, and whether they were solely responsible without any lapses or slip-ups of the personnel deployed in the recruitment process

Petitioners were awarded the major penalty of dismissal from service without any individual departmental inquiry and affording any right of audience

Moreover, a specific plea was taken by the petitioners before the Tribunal that their similarly placed colleagues were reinstated afterwards, but this benefit was not afforded to the petitioners who had been discriminated against

Neither this vital contention was appreciated nor the respondents were called upon to verify or comment on it to dislodge or disentangle the plea of discrimination

Petitioners were not appointed through any illegal or fake recruitment process, rather there was an issue of being overage, which was intimated to them after about 4 to 6 years from the date of their induction in service and they had been made the victims of this overage issue without being intimated of any such defect at the time of applying for the job, and after serving 4 and 6 years respectively in the Police Department, the drastic action of dismissal from service was taken without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and conducting enquiry

There was no explanation by the department as to why their own recruitment procedure was so weak and vulnerable that it detected such flaw or deficiency after 4 to 6 years

There was nothing on record with regards to the present petitioners which may show that they managed their appointment through some illegal means or committed any fraud

According to the petitioners, there was also a conflict and disagreement on the exact age of the petitioners at the time of making application for joining the recruitment process and the age intimated by the law officer during the course of arguments which also needed to be resolved

Furthermore, while dismissing the petitioners from service after they served a considerable length of service, the department also failed to advert to the possibility of age relaxation, if any, available under the law, in view of Government Policy or Notification in vogue for any ex-post facto approval

Petitions were converted into appeals and allowed, the impugned order was set-aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to decide the appeals of petitioners on merits after providing equal opportunity of hearing to the parties.

Admittedly the respondents were dismissed from service based on an established charge of misconduct after a proper regular departmental inquiry was conducted by the competent authority

Findings in the inquiry report were not only accepted by the competent authority but had also been affirmed by the appellate authority of the same department

In the instant case, the major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed by the competent authority in accordance with law and the relevant rules

Fact that the respondents procured their appointment based on bogus and fake driving licenses could not be condoned

Reasoning given in the impugned judgment justifying their reinstatement on the ground that the respondents worked for 14 years and had subsequently obtained new licenses was not sufficient and did not wash away their act of submitting fake and bogus licenses and thus managing their appointments fraudulently

Once the appointment was sought on the basis of bogus licenses, such appointment could not be legitimized

This was based on the principle referred to as the "doctrine of unclean hands."

This legal doctrine holds that a person who has acted unethically, deceitfully, or with dishonesty should not be entitled to the benefits derived from such actions

When applied to employment, particularly in sensitive roles like the police service, this principle asserts that someone who gains their position through fraudulent means-such as by falsifying documents-cannot be trusted to uphold the integrity and responsibilities of that position

Furthermore, discovering the fraud, even several years after the fact, could still be ground for disciplinary action because the initial appointment was obtained illegitimately

The rationale was that trust and integrity are foundational to public service roles, and a breach of this nature undermined the trust necessary for the role and could potentially have legal and institutional consequences

Said principle maintains that the integrity of the institution and the trust placed in its officials are paramount, and therefore, any breach, regardless of when discovered, must be addressed decisively

Respondents knew that they had submitted fake and bogus licenses during the recruitment process

Thus, the Tribunal had failed to take into consideration the fact that the basic qualification/eligibility to the post of driver constable was a genuine license which the respondents did not meet

In the absence of the same, the Tribunal acted in an arbitrary and whimsical manner overlooking the specific facts and circumstances by granting relief to the respondents in violation of the law

Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed; the impugned judgment was set aside and the dismissal orders of the respondents passed by the department were upheld.

Criminal proceedings address allegations of criminal conduct and determine legal culpability, while departmental proceedings are connected with matters of service discipline and conduct

Results of a criminal case do not necessarily impact issues related to departmental responsibilities and discipline

Delay in invoking lawful remedy by person or entity that was sleeping over their rights may be denied

Appeal of petitioner/civil servant, after his acquittal in criminal case was barred by time and he failed to justify such delay

Service Tribunal was correct in dismissing appeal of petitioner/civil servant on both grounds of limitation as well as merits, as his conduct throughout the proceedings had been questionable

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Service Tribunal, as it was well-reasoned and had considered all legal and factual aspects of the matter

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Service Tribunal converted major penalty of 'dismissal from service' imposed by the competent authority converted into reduction in time scale by two stages for a period of two years in terms of Rule 4(1)(b)(i) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973

Legality

Inquiry report showed that proper opportunity was afforded to the respondents (employees) to defend the charges

Allegations were mostly based on documentary evidence and the performance of duties by the respondents in accordance with the relevant rules and circulars encompassing their nature of duties

Findings and recommendations jotted down in the enquiry reports were properly considered by the competent authority with the proper application of mind and since the charges were found to be proved, the punishment was imposed in accordance with law, keeping in mind all attending circumstances, including the gravity and severity of the proven charges

Tribunal while converting the major punishment into minor punishment failed to evaluate both the inquiry reports wherein the allegations were proved, and without appreciating the reports, the Tribunal treated the cases of both the respondents in the appeal as a mere case of inefficiency and negligence which was without any rationale

Tribunal also failed to highlight any serious defect in the inquiry reports or procedure which became the cause of modifying or setting aside the original punishment of dismissal from service awarded by the competent authority

Where public money and its embezzlement is involved or at stake, the responsible persons cannot be let free or exonerated with only a minor penalty, so while converting the major penalty of removal from service into any minor penalty, it is an onerous obligation of the Service Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction of conversion of punishment with proper application of mind which obviously connotes and necessitates that the quantum of punishment be proportionate and complementary to the charge of misconduct even for a minor act of negligence and inefficiency committed by the delinquent in his duties; so the punishment, even in the minor category as well, should also be of such kind that it may create at least some deterrence for the delinquent and other employees to be more vigilant and attentive to their duties in the future, rather than performing the tasks with callous attitude, which is highly prejudicial and detrimental to the effective functioning and performance of the department

Appeals were allowed, the impugned judgments passed by the Service Tribunal were set aside and the penalty (of dismissal from service) awarded by the department to the respondents was restored.

According to the statement of allegations, the Medico-Legal Report declared that the hymen of the victim was freshly torn and bleeding, the chemical analysis report confirmed the presence of human sperm in the vaginal swab and shalwar of the victim

In the disciplinary proceedings, the competent authority concluded that there was no justification for the petitioner (police official) to insert section 511, P.P.C. based solely on the statement of a seven-year-old minor girl, recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., while ignoring the ocular testimony of the victim's father who caught the accused with the help of neighbors committing the act of rape and handed him over to the police

Even the victim in her recorded statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. did not absolve the accused but the petitioner prematurely added section 511, P.P.C to provide advantage to the accused during his prosecution

Police force is a disciplined force with significant accountability and the responsibility of maintaining law and public order in the society

Therefore, any person who wants to be part of the disciplined force should be a person of utmost integrity and uprightness with an unimpeachable, spotless character, and clean antecedents

In the case in hand, disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner after complying with due process of law and on the basis of self-evident and self-explanatory documents

Enquiry officer, rightly found the petitioner guilty in his report for further necessary action

Dismissal from service order passed against the petitioner was maintained

Petition was dismissed and leave was refused.

Admittedly neither any right of personal hearing was afforded nor was any inquiry conducted to prove whether the petitioners secured their appointments lawfully or unlawfully or in a deceitful manner, and whether they were solely responsible without any lapses or slip-ups of the personnel deployed in the recruitment process

Petitioners were awarded the major penalty of dismissal from service without any individual departmental inquiry and affording any right of audience

Moreover, a specific plea was taken by the petitioners before the Tribunal that their similarly placed colleagues were reinstated afterwards, but this benefit was not afforded to the petitioners who had been discriminated against

Neither this vital contention was appreciated nor the respondents were called upon to verify or comment on it to dislodge or disentangle the plea of discrimination

Petitioners were not appointed through any illegal or fake recruitment process, rather there was an issue of being overage, which was intimated to them after about 4 to 6 years from the date of their induction in service and they had been made the victims of this overage issue without being intimated of any such defect at the time of applying for the job, and after serving 4 and 6 years respectively in the Police Department, the drastic action of dismissal from service was taken without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and conducting enquiry

There was no explanation by the department as to why their own recruitment procedure was so weak and vulnerable that it detected such flaw or deficiency after 4 to 6 years

There was nothing on record with regards to the present petitioners which may show that they managed their appointment through some illegal means or committed any fraud

According to the petitioners, there was also a conflict and disagreement on the exact age of the petitioners at the time of making application for joining the recruitment process and the age intimated by the law officer during the course of arguments which also needed to be resolved

Furthermore, while dismissing the petitioners from service after they served a considerable length of service, the department also failed to advert to the possibility of age relaxation, if any, available under the law, in view of Government Policy or Notification in vogue for any ex-post facto approval

Petitions were converted into appeals and allowed, the impugned order was set-aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to decide the appeals of petitioners on merits after providing equal opportunity of hearing to the parties.

Admittedly the respondents were dismissed from service based on an established charge of misconduct after a proper regular departmental inquiry was conducted by the competent authority

Findings in the inquiry report were not only accepted by the competent authority but had also been affirmed by the appellate authority of the same department

In the instant case, the major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed by the competent authority in accordance with law and the relevant rules

Fact that the respondents procured their appointment based on bogus and fake driving licenses could not be condoned

Reasoning given in the impugned judgment justifying their reinstatement on the ground that the respondents worked for 14 years and had subsequently obtained new licenses was not sufficient and did not wash away their act of submitting fake and bogus licenses and thus managing their appointments fraudulently

Once the appointment was sought on the basis of bogus licenses, such appointment could not be legitimized

This was based on the principle referred to as the "doctrine of unclean hands."

This legal doctrine holds that a person who has acted unethically, deceitfully, or with dishonesty should not be entitled to the benefits derived from such actions

When applied to employment, particularly in sensitive roles like the police service, this principle asserts that someone who gains their position through fraudulent means-such as by falsifying documents-cannot be trusted to uphold the integrity and responsibilities of that position

Furthermore, discovering the fraud, even several years after the fact, could still be ground for disciplinary action because the initial appointment was obtained illegitimately

The rationale was that trust and integrity are foundational to public service roles, and a breach of this nature undermined the trust necessary for the role and could potentially have legal and institutional consequences

Said principle maintains that the integrity of the institution and the trust placed in its officials are paramount, and therefore, any breach, regardless of when discovered, must be addressed decisively

Respondents knew that they had submitted fake and bogus licenses during the recruitment process

Thus, the Tribunal had failed to take into consideration the fact that the basic qualification/eligibility to the post of driver constable was a genuine license which the respondents did not meet

In the absence of the same, the Tribunal acted in an arbitrary and whimsical manner overlooking the specific facts and circumstances by granting relief to the respondents in violation of the law

Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed; the impugned judgment was set aside and the dismissal orders of the respondents passed by the department were upheld.

Criminal proceedings address allegations of criminal conduct and determine legal culpability, while departmental proceedings are connected with matters of service discipline and conduct

Results of a criminal case do not necessarily impact issues related to departmental responsibilities and discipline

Delay in invoking lawful remedy by person or entity that was sleeping over their rights may be denied

Appeal of petitioner/civil servant, after his acquittal in criminal case was barred by time and he failed to justify such delay

Service Tribunal was correct in dismissing appeal of petitioner/civil servant on both grounds of limitation as well as merits, as his conduct throughout the proceedings had been questionable

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Service Tribunal, as it was well-reasoned and had considered all legal and factual aspects of the matter

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Service Tribunal converted major penalty of 'dismissal from service' imposed by the competent authority converted into reduction in time scale by two stages for a period of two years in terms of Rule 4(1)(b)(i) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973

Legality

Inquiry report showed that proper opportunity was afforded to the respondents (employees) to defend the charges

Allegations were mostly based on documentary evidence and the performance of duties by the respondents in accordance with the relevant rules and circulars encompassing their nature of duties

Findings and recommendations jotted down in the enquiry reports were properly considered by the competent authority with the proper application of mind and since the charges were found to be proved, the punishment was imposed in accordance with law, keeping in mind all attending circumstances, including the gravity and severity of the proven charges

Tribunal while converting the major punishment into minor punishment failed to evaluate both the inquiry reports wherein the allegations were proved, and without appreciating the reports, the Tribunal treated the cases of both the respondents in the appeal as a mere case of inefficiency and negligence which was without any rationale

Tribunal also failed to highlight any serious defect in the inquiry reports or procedure which became the cause of modifying or setting aside the original punishment of dismissal from service awarded by the competent authority

Where public money and its embezzlement is involved or at stake, the responsible persons cannot be let free or exonerated with only a minor penalty, so while converting the major penalty of removal from service into any minor penalty, it is an onerous obligation of the Service Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction of conversion of punishment with proper application of mind which obviously connotes and necessitates that the quantum of punishment be proportionate and complementary to the charge of misconduct even for a minor act of negligence and inefficiency committed by the delinquent in his duties; so the punishment, even in the minor category as well, should also be of such kind that it may create at least some deterrence for the delinquent and other employees to be more vigilant and attentive to their duties in the future, rather than performing the tasks with callous attitude, which is highly prejudicial and detrimental to the effective functioning and performance of the department

Appeals were allowed, the impugned judgments passed by the Service Tribunal were set aside and the penalty (of dismissal from service) awarded by the department to the respondents was restored.

Rr. 14 & 12 [as existed prior to being amended by Notification No.6206-EXEC-II dated 16th of March, 2023, issued by the Provincial Police Officer]

Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), S. 21

Police official

Dismissal from service

Departmental appeal, filing of

Limitation

Notwithstanding Rule 14 of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, where no time period for filing an appeal has been provided, the time frame specified under section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, is to be followed, which is sixty days.

Allegation of travelling in a private car without appropriate permission; abusing official position for the purpose of extortion; tarnishing the reputation of the police department, and fabricating information to conceal misconduct

[Per Yahya Afridi, J. (Majority view): Convincing material was available on record to show that the petitioners (whilst in police uniform) were travelling on a motorway in a private car without either informing or seeking permission from the appropriate authority

Petitioners were arrested pursuant to a call of the complainant to the Motorway Police, indicating a premeditated and deliberate violation of procedure on their part

Overall conduct of the petitioners, including unauthorized travel in police uniform and the subsequent abuse of their official position, painted a clear picture of gross misconduct

Such actions were not only in violation of the trust placed in them by virtue of their positions but also signaled a disregard for the laws and procedures they were entrusted to uphold

Such conduct necessitated a thorough examination and underscored the importance of maintaining integrity within the police force

Gravity of the petitioners' actions stood independently of the outcome of the criminal proceedings and was sufficient to justify disciplinary action

Robust response in the form of disciplinary action against the petitioners was not only justified but essential to deter similar conduct in the future]

[Per Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, J. (Minority view): Neither the Inquiry Officer made an attempt to probe into the allegations leveled by the petitioners against the complainant nor the complainant and his witness were associated with the inquiry proceedings

When the petitioners had taken a specific stance that the complainant and his witness were narcotics smugglers, the Inquiry Officer ought to have collected evidence either to accept or rebut the defence evidence of the petitioners

Petitioners had unblemished service record whereas it was a fact that they booked drug peddlers in narcotics cases, who were eventually convicted by the courts

Surprisingly no prosecution evidence was presented to the petitioners nor they were afforded any opportunity of cross-examination

Petitioners claimed that on the day of their arrest, they were visiting different areas of the city/tehsil for checking attendance of police personnel posted there and duly informed the operator of the concerned District Police Officer (DPO)

Inquiry Officer did not bother to collect evidence in this regard and he just denied the petitioners' stance by saying that they could not give a satisfactory answer

Even if this allegation is believed to be true even then the award of major penalty of dismissal from service was not warranted]

Petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed and leave was refused.

Appellant (Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate) tendered his resignation after two months of the report of the Inquiry Officer who recommended the imposition of major penalty in the shape of dismissal from service against him

Contention of the appellant that there were serious threats to his life due to which he tendered his resignation, which was not voluntary, rather on account of compelling circumstances

Validity

No such contention/reason was mentioned in the resignation itself having been tendered by the appellant

It was also evident from the relevant notification that the resignation of the appellant was accepted on account of droppage of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him on the charge of misconduct

It was also manifestly clear that despite the fact that matter of acceptance of resignation remained under consideration for a considerable period but no effort was made by the appellant to move for its withdrawal

Even after acceptance of the resignation the appellant remained mum for a considerable period and finally he moved the representation after more than one year and nine months (from date of Notification), which was rejected by the respondents (Registrar High Court) after six months or so

Definitions of the term "resignation" as given in various law dictionaries leads to an irresistible conclusion that resignation means "formal renouncement or relinquishment of an office", which must be intentional and voluntary, and for drawing a conclusion as to whether the resignation is voluntary or otherwise facts and circumstances in toto have to be taken into consideration

Once a resignation is accepted by the competent authority, the employee tendering the same is precluded to recall it

High Court viewed that the resignation of the appellant was voluntary without any hint of doubt and as such he was precluded to ask for its withdrawal and reinstatement in service

Appeal filed by the ex-Judicial Officer, being devoid of any merits, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners were employees of National Bank of Pakistan who were proceeded departmentally and were dismissed from service

Though jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the "Constitution" to some extent is limited with respect to the orders ensuing from the departmental proceedings determining the guilt or otherwise of an employee but High Court being custodian of the rights of citizens cannot shut its eyes when patent illegalities are floating on the surface of the record

Right of earning is right to life and no one can be allowed to take away such right in a clandestine manner

Petitioners were proceeded against in a non-transparent and haphazard manner in the departmental proceedings, which culminated into their dismissal from service

Impugned orders were apparently suffering from patent illegalities and were against the principles of natural justice

Petitions were allowed and as a sequel, the petitioners were reinstated in service with all permissible back benefits.

Petitioners were employees of National Bank of Pakistan who were proceeded departmentally and were dismissed from service

Though jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the "Constitution" to some extent is limited with respect to the orders ensuing from the departmental proceedings determining the guilt or otherwise of an employee but High Court being custodian of the rights of citizens cannot shut its eyes when patent illegalities are floating on the surface of the record

Right of earning is right to life and no one can be allowed to take away such right in a clandestine manner

Petitioners were proceeded against in a non-transparent and haphazard manner in the departmental proceedings, which culminated into their dismissal from service

Impugned orders were apparently suffering from patent illegalities and were against the principles of natural justice

Petitions were allowed and as a sequel, the petitioners were reinstated in service with all permissible back benefits.

Petitioners were employees of National Bank of Pakistan who were proceeded departmentally and were dismissed from service

Plea raised by petitioners was that they joined service much before National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 2021, therefore, provisions of National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1973, were not applicable to them

Validity

Powers were conferred under S.11 of Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974, upon the Board of National Bank of Pakistan to frame rules

Scope of S. 11 of Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974, was dominant and preemptive command of law in terms of vesting complete management powers on the Board of National Bank of Pakistan, free from interference of Federal Government

Act of making non-statutory National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 2021, by Board of National Bank of Pakistan after repeal of statutory National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1973, by Federal Government was a conscious effort by the management of National Bank of Pakistan in concert with Federal Government to streamline human resource of National Bank of Pakistan in order to bring it at par with other private banks in increasingly competitive commercial arena considering that primary services of any bank were in the nature of provision of efficient services to its customers

National Bank of Pakistan was a statutory commercial bank and in order to retain its viability, was expected and required to compete with other commercial banks

Desire to exercise control over its employees at part with other private banks was quite natural

There was no harm in the objectives provided the same was achieved after due process within the ambit of law

Board of National Bank of Pakistan in exercise of its powers conferred under S. 11 of Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974, read with bye law 51 of Bye Laws, 2015, made the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 2021, without approval of Federal Government was non-statutory

After repeal of National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1973, only National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 2021 were in vogue and same indiscriminately applied to all employees of National Bank of Pakistan after date of enforcement of Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974, subject to R. 2 of National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 2021

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as petitioners were rightly proceeded under non-statutory National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 2021

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

No regular inquiry was conducted for bringing on record relevant reliable evidence for fixing up extent of liability of culprit officials in subject issue as well as for onward determination of quantum of penalties

It is an inalienable right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with law as envisaged by Art. 4 of the Constitution

It is duty and obligation of every public functionary to act within four corners of the mandate of the Constitution, Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, and pass a speaking order

High Court set aside order passed against petitioner and matter was remitted to authorities to conduct a regular inquiry against all alleged accused officials/officers including petitioner revealing duty/role/responsibility/wrong doing of each individual emerging from the inquiry, calling for imposition of minor/major penalty against each one

High Court directed the petitioner to join proceedings as and when so summoned by Inquiry Officer

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner, who was plumber / BS-06 in Port Qasim Authority, filed constitutional petition against his dismissal contending that no regular inquiry was conducted

Validity

Show-Cause Notice, in the present case, revealed that a Scrutiny Committee was formed in terms of an order having passed by the Supreme Court, which Committee was entrusted with the task of examining the legality and vires of appointments made in Port Qasim Authority for last five years, including the case of petitioner

Petitioner was also inquired by the Scrutiny Committee, which later on found that he had provided a fake educational certificate and he was found guilty in departmental proceedings and the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon him on the ground that he had produced a fake educational certificate

Record showed that reasonable opportunities were extended to the delinquent / petitioner to defend himself effectively at every stage of the disciplinary proceedings in terms of ratio of order passed by the Supreme Court to meet the principle of natural justice

However, the petitioner failed to substantiate his point of view and his plea was rejected in terms of issuance of Show-Cause Notice and subsequent order of dismissal from service

Charges levelled against the petitioner had also been substantiated by the report of the concerned Board of Secondary Education ('Education Board')

Case of the petitioner could not be thrashed out under constitutional jurisdiction as he was found guilty of misconduct in his capacity as an employee of the PQA and he deserved stringent punishment for his misconduct based on the report of Education Board

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was granted Ex-Pakistan Leave for 174 days, thereafter she made an application for medical leave supported by an advice of a foreign doctor for 90 days

Petitioner was granted a leave of only 29 days where-after still being unwell she applied for another extension of leave for 63 days that too without pay, that request was declined

Validity

Chief Medical Officer of the authorities having been confronted with the medical reports gave advice that the petitioner could fly to Pakistan for her further treatment

Such act of the Chief Medical Officer itself was in excess of the authority given to him by the Sick Leave Rules

Company had ample material to act as per Cl 30.1 of the Rules and should have granted 30 days initial leave with full remuneration

Correct procedure as provided by Sick Leave Rules should have been followed by initially giving 30 days leave with full remuneration where there was even an option to avail another three months sick leave under Cl. 30.2(iii) and a further three months sick leave under Cl. 30.2(iv), thereafter under Cl. 30.2(v) if after 12 months of illness over and above the entitled sick leave period, an executive was found unfit for further service, then he/she could be retired on medical grounds with full terminal benefits as admissible under the Rules

Authorities had failed to act in accordance with Sick Leave Rules, in circumstances

Constitutional petition was allowed, impugned order was set aside and the petitioner was reinstated on her previous post from the date of the order with all back benefits.

Petitioner was employee of respondent / bank who remained absent from duty without leave, resultantly he was dismissed from service without conducting regular inquiry

Validity

Dispensing with regular inquiry and awarding two punishments i.e. down grading and major penalty of dismissal from service should not have been imposed upon petitioner at the same time, when charges were denied by petitioner

Principle of natural justice demanded that petitioner should have been heard on the allegations levelled against him

Respondent / bank had chosen not to conduct regular inquiry and simply relied upon purported admission of petitioner which was not called for in the circumstances

Order of termination from service and subsequent appellate order issued by respondent / bank were not sustainable under the law as inquiry about allegations of unauthorized absence from duty was not held under the procedure laid down under Service Regulations of respondent / bank

Petitioner had 453 days frozen leave balance in his credit as per leave record certificate and he should have been sent to Leave Preparatory to Retirement (LPR)

High Court directed respondent / bank to issue retirement order and award pensionary benefits to petitioner by setting aside dismissal order

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Allegation of travelling in a private car without appropriate permission; abusing official position for the purpose of extortion; tarnishing the reputation of the police department, and fabricating information to conceal misconduct

[Per Yahya Afridi, J. (Majority view): Convincing material was available on record to show that the petitioners (whilst in police uniform) were travelling on a motorway in a private car without either informing or seeking permission from the appropriate authority

Petitioners were arrested pursuant to a call of the complainant to the Motorway Police, indicating a premeditated and deliberate violation of procedure on their part

Overall conduct of the petitioners, including unauthorized travel in police uniform and the subsequent abuse of their official position, painted a clear picture of gross misconduct

Such actions were not only in violation of the trust placed in them by virtue of their positions but also signaled a disregard for the laws and procedures they were entrusted to uphold

Such conduct necessitated a thorough examination and underscored the importance of maintaining integrity within the police force

Gravity of the petitioners' actions stood independently of the outcome of the criminal proceedings and was sufficient to justify disciplinary action

Robust response in the form of disciplinary action against the petitioners was not only justified but essential to deter similar conduct in the future]

[Per Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, J. (Minority view): Neither the Inquiry Officer made an attempt to probe into the allegations leveled by the petitioners against the complainant nor the complainant and his witness were associated with the inquiry proceedings

When the petitioners had taken a specific stance that the complainant and his witness were narcotics smugglers, the Inquiry Officer ought to have collected evidence either to accept or rebut the defence evidence of the petitioners

Petitioners had unblemished service record whereas it was a fact that they booked drug peddlers in narcotics cases, who were eventually convicted by the courts

Surprisingly no prosecution evidence was presented to the petitioners nor they were afforded any opportunity of cross-examination

Petitioners claimed that on the day of their arrest, they were visiting different areas of the city/tehsil for checking attendance of police personnel posted there and duly informed the operator of the concerned District Police Officer (DPO)

Inquiry Officer did not bother to collect evidence in this regard and he just denied the petitioners' stance by saying that they could not give a satisfactory answer

Even if this allegation is believed to be true even then the award of major penalty of dismissal from service was not warranted]

Petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed and leave was refused.

History of the petitioner's litigation showed that he selected multiple forums to institute multiple litigations to challenge the action of the management instead of jotting down all the causes of action available to him for suing in one go

Petitioner could unite both the causes of action such as the rejection order of the appeal and the dismissal order from service promptly instead of splitting the claims and opting to challenge them separately in the High Court and Civil Court which created the complication of overlapping the proceedings and also multiplicity of proceedings

Strange methodology was adopted by the petitioner in that the writ petition was filed in the High Court against the rejection of departmental appeal alone, whereas the dismissal order was challenged separately in a declaratory suit which was instituted after filing the writ petition

Ultimate challenge must have been to the dismissal order rather than assailing the rejection order of the appeal

Merely challenging the order of rejection of the appeal could not serve any purpose, unless, the declaratory suit was proceeded by the competent court of law to decide the fate of the petitioner's dismissal from service

Seemingly, the petitioner had already availed the appropriate remedy of filing a suit in the Civil Court for challenging his dismissal order

Order passed by Civil Court demonstrates that the judge recorded the statement of petitioner and Law Officer of employer-bank, who confirmed that an application to the management had been submitted by the petitioner for an amicable settlement on humanitarian and compassionate grounds which would be processed in accordance with law

After recording the statements, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn with the permission to file a fresh suit in case of further grievance

In view of this situation, there was no justification to interfere, in the impugned judgment of High Court

Supreme Court directed that if the management of the employer-bank had not decided the application moved by the petitioner till date, then the petitioner may avail a remedy of filing fresh suit or in the alternate, he was also at liberty to move proper application for resurrection of his suit and if such application was filed in the Trial Court and the suit was resurrected/restored to its original position, then the Civil Court shall decide the suit on merits within three months after providing an ample opportunity of hearing to the parties

Petition for leave to appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Civil servant in possession of five different passports travelling abroad frequently without obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from competent authority

In the present case, the magnitude of charges and the conduct of the petitioner (civil servant) explicated that, despite having full knowledge that, being a civil servant in BPS-19, he was not allowed to travel abroad without NOC and approval issued by the competent authority, he still travelled on different passports by deception and impersonation as a businessman

Moreover, , it was not understandable as to how he was in possession of five different passports, and frequently travelled using them without NOC, but nobody could check or trace such illegality and impropriety

Punishment of dismissal from service in the present case awarded to the petitioner was proportionate and reasonable to the act of misconduct committed by him, hence he does not deserve any indulgence for conversion of his punishment from dismissal of service to compulsory retirement

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

History of the petitioner's litigation showed that he selected multiple forums to institute multiple litigations to challenge the action of the management instead of jotting down all the causes of action available to him for suing in one go

Petitioner could unite both the causes of action such as the rejection order of the appeal and the dismissal order from service promptly instead of splitting the claims and opting to challenge them separately in the High Court and Civil Court which created the complication of overlapping the proceedings and also multiplicity of proceedings

Strange methodology was adopted by the petitioner in that the writ petition was filed in the High Court against the rejection of departmental appeal alone, whereas the dismissal order was challenged separately in a declaratory suit which was instituted after filing the writ petition

Ultimate challenge must have been to the dismissal order rather than assailing the rejection order of the appeal

Merely challenging the order of rejection of the appeal could not serve any purpose, unless, the declaratory suit was proceeded by the competent court of law to decide the fate of the petitioner's dismissal from service

Seemingly, the petitioner had already availed the appropriate remedy of filing a suit in the Civil Court for challenging his dismissal order

Order passed by Civil Court demonstrates that the judge recorded the statement of petitioner and Law Officer of employer-bank, who confirmed that an application to the management had been submitted by the petitioner for an amicable settlement on humanitarian and compassionate grounds which would be processed in accordance with law

After recording the statements, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn with the permission to file a fresh suit in case of further grievance

In view of this situation, there was no justification to interfere, in the impugned judgment of High Court

Supreme Court directed that if the management of the employer-bank had not decided the application moved by the petitioner till date, then the petitioner may avail a remedy of filing fresh suit or in the alternate, he was also at liberty to move proper application for resurrection of his suit and if such application was filed in the Trial Court and the suit was resurrected/restored to its original position, then the Civil Court shall decide the suit on merits within three months after providing an ample opportunity of hearing to the parties

Petition for leave to appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Civil servant in possession of five different passports travelling abroad frequently without obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from competent authority

In the present case, the magnitude of charges and the conduct of the petitioner (civil servant) explicated that, despite having full knowledge that, being a civil servant in BPS-19, he was not allowed to travel abroad without NOC and approval issued by the competent authority, he still travelled on different passports by deception and impersonation as a businessman

Moreover, , it was not understandable as to how he was in possession of five different passports, and frequently travelled using them without NOC, but nobody could check or trace such illegality and impropriety

Punishment of dismissal from service in the present case awarded to the petitioner was proportionate and reasonable to the act of misconduct committed by him, hence he does not deserve any indulgence for conversion of his punishment from dismissal of service to compulsory retirement

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Respondents (postmen) gave an explanation before the Court that instead of delivering the said amount to the payees, they kept the same with them for 10/15 days, on asking of the payees, who were out of town

However respondents admitted that they were supposed to handover the money orders back to the Post Office if the payees were not available at the addresses

Service Tribunal itself took note of the fact that the respondents had used the money orders' amount for their own purpose and they were in the habit of committing misappropriation of the same amount but despite that took a lenient view, which was not warranted in law because misappropriation of the amount either meager or huge resulted in breach of trust which was reposed in a government servant and the delinquent had no right to be retained in service

Appeal was allowed, impugned judgment of Service Tribunal was set aside, and penalty of dismissal from service was restored.

Misappropriation of amount either meager or huge resulted in breach of trust which was reposed in a government servant and the delinquent had no right to be retained in service.