Mala Fide

Order of termination in post remand proceedings during the operation/subsistence of injunctive order of Labour Court and High Court

Legality

Regularizations of other daily wage employees

Discrimination

Mala fide

Alteration in record

Scope

Respondents daily wage employees claimed their regularization against permanent posts

Plea of the petitioners was that since the services of the respondents had been terminated, therefore, they could not be regularized

Validity

Termination of service of daily wage employees, who had attained the status of permanent workmen after the expiry of the requisite period, without adhering to the procedure laid down under S.O. 12 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, was illegal and could not impede their claim for regularization

Evidence of mala fide on the part of the employer, such as alteration of attendance records to show unauthorized absence or discriminatory treatment in regularizing similarly situated employees, could be taken into consideration by the courts while deciding the grievance petition of the affected employees

Termination letter of respondents showed that the same related to promotion of another employee, however, on the margin of the said document a note as to termination of respondent had been given

Petitioners were not able to produce termination order of one of the respondents, which cast serious doubts about the conduct of the petitioners

Any action taken by an employer against an employee during the subsistence of an interim injunction or a status quo order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction is subject to scrutiny by the said court and cannot be used to prejudice the employee's rights in the ongoing proceedings

Concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below cannot be upset in Constitutional petition

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mala fide order means one which is passed not for the purpose contemplated by the enactment granting the power to pass the order but for some other collateral or ulterior purposes.

Wage and general allegations have no value in the eye of law.

Mala fide cannot be attributed to the Executive/Government functionary, performing functions in furtherance of a legal mandate

In absence of any cogent and convincing material in support of plea of mala fide, it shall be presumed that the action taken by the Executive/Government functionary in pursuance to a lawful mandate is not tainted with mala fide.

Purpose of a writ of quo warranto under Art. 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution is to ensure that no person continues to wield authority in the name of state when there is no power vested in such person by law to wield such authority

Paramount purpose is to give effect to Art. 4 of the Constitution, which guarantees that individuals are to be dealt with in accordance with law

Public office holder can exercise only such authority as is vested in him or her by law

No citizen can be prevented from doing something by a public office holder which is not prohibited by law or compelled to do anything which is not required by law

Court must at the outset satisfy itself that a petition of quo warranto has not been filed for any collateral purpose with an oblique motive

No one, who is seeking either to besmirch character of a public official or to pursue any other insidious purpose by abusing process of Court, is allowed to avail constitutional remedy of quo warranto and embarrass Court proceedings in the process

In the present case there was lack of bona-fide on part of the petitioner and petition was not maintainable against two respondents who were no longer holding any office with the Authority

High Court declined to indulge in exercise of legality or lack thereof of appointments of other respondents after finding that the petition was not maintainable

High Court imposed cost of litigation of respondents upon petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Plea raised by petitioner was despite repeated appearances, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) had been calling him time and again due to mala fide reasons

Validity

High Court while exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction was to see whether or not there was anymala fide on the part of NAB authorities to arrest accused and whether or not a prima facie case for grant of extra ordinary concession of admitting him to bail before arrest was made out

If Constitutional Court in the light of record had reached to the conclusion that mala fide was reflected from intended NAB's move to arrest accused and latter also succeeded in setting up a prima facie case in his favour then in such like situation, it was primary duty and legal obligation of Court to grant relief to the citizen so that he could be protected from unjust and arbitrary arrest

If despite element of mala fide on the part of NAB to nab accused, the latter was not admitted to bail before arrest and allowed to be grilled by the former's investigators for maximum period of 90 days by putting him behind the bars then centuries old jurisprudence developed by Courts of law regarding presumption of innocence of accused unless proven guilty would die down and would be meaningless

In response to various call up notices, petitioner appeared before Combined Investigation Team and presented before it his point of view regarding allegations pertaining to accumulation of assets beyond his known sources of income

Reply so submitted by petitioner to Combined Investigation Team was documented one and it would be seen by the relevant forum whether plea of accused and his defence was correct or otherwise

Petitioner had prima facie answered through documents all queries of NAB put to him through numerous call up notices

Apart from responding to NAB's queries through various documents, he was regularly attending High Court and did not misuse his interim order whereby ad-interim bail before arrest was granted to him which aspect could not be overlooked while deciding bail application

Bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Concession of pre-arrest bail being an extraordinary relief is to be granted to protect the innocent persons from the victimization and humiliation at the hands of police through abuse of law for ulterior motive.

Mala fide can be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case.

Plaintiff company assailed notice issued by authorities to furnish them record to explain income tax returns filed by the company and also provide record to conduct audit

Plea of plaintiff company was that notice was result of mala fide and discriminatory which had offended Fundamental Right of Art. 25 of the Constitution

Validity

Mere allegation of mala fides was not enough to dislodge presumption of correctness attached to official acts

Before the allegation of mala fides in fact could be allowed to be proved, such mala fides had to be pleaded with particulars

Apart from bald averment of mala fides, plaint did not give particulars

Plea of plaintiff was not worthwhile as the notice did not assign any reasons

Notice in question had given plausible reasons for asking for documents under S. 176 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 but plaintiff company did not reply the notice

Plaint did not attack the grounds taken in the notice, nor were such grounds addressed during the course of proceedings

Plaintiff failed to set-up a case for discrimination

Suit was dismissed, in circumstances.

One of the petitioners was ex-minister and remaining were senior officials who were alleged to have misused their authority in appointing officials on high salaries to introduce Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) into Pakistan State Oil (PSO)

Validity

Petitioner was an out spoken critic and opponent of current Federal Government

Another reference was already filed against petitioner at place "I" in which he was imprisoned for 7 months before he was granted bail and thereafter second reference was filed

Mala fides on the part of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) could not be ruled out in order to put political pressure on petitioner to stay mum and keep him incarcerated

Evidence against petitioner and other accused persons was prima facie not strong

Mala fide was very hard to prove and it could be inferred from facts and circumstances of the case

Reference was largely based on documents which were in possession of NAB and could not be interfered with by accused persons

Question of loss if at all was occurred to State in appointing co-accused persons and PSO entering into LNG market was its business/policy decision

Loss if any could not be on account of corruption but for other factors such as a weak international market etc.

Accused persons cooperated throughout investigation and were no longer needed for investigative purposes

Bail could not be used as a punishment and by placing names of petitioners on Exit Control List threat of their absconsion would be removed

Pre-arrest bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Malice and mala fide were questions of fact which had to be proved by leading evidence, and that vague allegation of mala fides would be of no avail to a party.

Petitioner impugned the order of Full Bench, National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) allowing appeal filed by respondent/Bank (her employer)

Said Bank had dismissed the petitioner on charge of: firstly, posting a number of wrong entries with mala fide intention, one of them amounting to Rs.4,05,567/-; secondly, borrowing money from customers of the bank; and thirdly, being absent without leave

Validity

Letter of charge/dismissal did not specify any sort of misconduct that the petitioner had committed

Deposit of an amount in the account of a wrong account holder could at best be "habitual negligence or neglect of work"

Onus to prove mala fides lay on the respondents

No allegation as to collaboration / collusion with accountholder, or being beneficiary of any of the amount erroneously deposited in the said account

Alleged error in the petitioner's act of depositing amount in account of an account holder whose name was similar to the account holder in whose account said amount should have been deposited could not be held to reflect on the petitioner's integrity

No financial loss/loss of reputation to the respondent/bank was proved

Entire amount erroneously deposited was subsequently deposited in the correct account

Nothing on record to show that accountholder had closed his account due to said incident

No finding whatsoever whether the charge of borrowing money from respondent/bank's customers had been proved

Constitutional petition was allowed and matter was remanded to the Full Bench of NIRC for a decision afresh.

Burden of proof is on the one who alleges mala fide on the part of complainant or the investigation agency.

Mala fide is to be proved through independent and cogent evidence, mere allegations are not sufficient.

For grant of pre-arrest bail, one of the pre-condition is that the accused has to show that his arrest is intended by the prosecution out of mala fide intention and for ulterior consideration in order to humiliate the applicant

At pre-arrest bail stage it is difficult to prove the element of mala fide by the accused through solid evidence and same is to be decided from the facts and circumstances of the case

If some events/hints to the effect are available, the same will validly constitute the element of mala fide.

Petitioner (constable in the office of Excise and Taxation Department) sought transfer of inquiry pending alleging mala fide on the part of the Inquiry Officer

Held, that bar contained under Art. 212 of the Constitution was absolute and inflexible, therefore, the question of mala fide as well as the authority of the Inquiry Officer (respondent) to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, admittedly a civil servant, could not be looked into by the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Former is actuated by extraneous consideration whereas the latter arises where a public authority deliberately acts contrary to the objects, requirements and conditions of a valid exercise of power even though that may be without any ulterior motive.

"Pre-arrest bail" was extraordinary relief and was only available in cases where there was mala fide on the part of complainant or investigating agency

Accused persons failed to show mala fides on the part of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) rather the officials admitted that they had issued "No Objection Certificate" in favour of accused who was principal beneficiary from whom other accused persons purchased the land

Petitioner was Sub-Registrar and by virtue of his post he was duty bound to register every document produced before him and had no option to refuse registration

Duties of Sub-Registrar were mentioned in S. 52 of Registration Act, 1908

Verification of documents and their validity and genuineness was not duty of Sub-Registrar to check the same under R. 135 of Registration Rules, 1929

Case of petitioner was one of further inquiry

Pre-arrest bail was confirmed, in circumstances.

Petitioners were alleged to have cheated members of public at large by seeking their investments of Rs.123.025 million in their housing scheme

Validity

No provision of pre-arrest bail existed in relevant laws for which petitioners were charged

Only High Court by invoking extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction could grant such relief very sparingly in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid reasons to be recorded in writing

Conditions for grant of pre-arrest and post-arrest bails were quite different

No mala fide on the part of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) officials was pointed out by petitioners nor was available on record

Elaborate sifting of evidence could not be made but only a tentative assessment was permissible

All petitioners in connivance of one another cheated allottees after taking a huge amount from them and deprived them of their right of ownership and title

Pre-arrest bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

Compliance to Information Document Request (IDR) and alleged Show-Cause Notice (SCN) issued were set for the same date and the same had shown mala fide intention of tax authorities

Show-cause notice was not issued as due process of law was not followed in letter and spirit which was suffice to annul whole proceedings enunciated by tax authorities

Scope for audit was extensive and involved grave verification before reaching a conclusion

Such verification was not conducted and ex-parte order was passed in haste, without any "definite information" in hand, which was a pre-requisite for amendment of an assessment order under S.122(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Audit proceeding under S.177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was only a procedure / mode and method to find out defect in accounts and in business affairs of taxpayer and to obtain "definite information" and objection of taxpayer on audit report after confrontation to taxpayer to further enter into jurisdiction under S.122(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, for making an amended assessment after acquiring authority under S.122(5) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue set aside orders passed by tax authorities

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Qualifications, eligibility criteria and methodology of evaluation of Board were prescribed in Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-19 to BPS-21) Rules, 2019

Such fell within exclusive domain of competent authority and it was an administrative function

Competent authority was the best judge to decide what factors were to be given preference and to what extent

Weightage given to a particular factor e.g. qualifications or quantum of allocation of marks to the Board, was not amenable to judicial scrutiny

Such were policy matters and not justiciable by a Court of law

Court could not curtail freedom of competent authority to formulate policy for promotion nor limit its prerogative to prescribe qualifications, conditions, eligibility criteria and methodology required to be adopted for the purposes of evaluation

Presumption of regularity, fairness and reliability of proceedings and subjective evaluation of Board could not be interfered with except when mala fide was demonstrably shown to float on the surface of record

High Court declared that Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 were validly framed and were not inconsistent with principles and law enunciated in on the subject

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as proceedings of Board and its affirmation by competent authority were impartial, unbiased, fair and result of careful consideration

Petitioners failed to rebut presumption of regularity and fairness attached with the proceedings and actions of Board or competent authority

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was government servant who was investigated by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on misappropriation and wastage of stored and surplus wheat under his supervision

Validity

Petitioner being incharge of go-down in question submitted number of applications regarding deterioration of wheat on account of weevil-ing/insect attacks and making arrangements for fumigation as well as repair of go-downs but no heed was paid by high-ups of department copy where of were attached with petition to high-ups of department

Allegatgions of prosecution regading guilt of petitioner required further probe and singling out petitioiner as accused was unfair

In presence of such requests made by petitioner followed by repeated reminders, high officials could not be exonerated from liability

Prima facie, it seemed that petitioner, being official of lower grade was made scapegoat by department just to save skin of high officials from clutches of law

Despoite there being total capacity of 2,38,000 bags at go-down in question, why wheat stock of 5,14,492 bags were stored in open premises for long period and who was responsible for procuring such huge quantity of wheat and kept it in open place

High Court accepted petitions despite cooperating wih NAB authorities in inquiry, petitioner apprehended his arrest by NAB in inquiry causing humiliation and unjustifiable harassment

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Suit filed by Bank was decreed and judgment debtor resisted execution of decree on grounds that property in question through inheritance from her husband which property could not be put to auction

Validity

Judgment debtor was trying to frustrate entire execution proceedings and any indulgence at such stage of proceedings could amount to frustrate implementation of decree which otherwise had attained finality

Interference, at such stage, could tantamount to interference in already decided matter which culminated by dismissal of objection petition filed by husband of judgment debtor

Claim of judgment debtor that transfer of property in her name through inheritance of her husband gave her fresh cause of action was without any basis and legal justification

Judgment debtor had stepped into shoes of her husband and could not claim better title or rights in property than her husband and such claim, being without any merit was repelled

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Trial Court as judgment debtor had failed to point out any illegality, perversity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Allegation against accused was that he, being Chief Minister, on a self-managed request of a Member of the Provincial Assembly (MPA) approved for construction of a sullage carrier under the garb of a public utility scheme, whereas, the actual motive behind its approval was to provide an effluent disposal mechanism to the mill owned by his son

Circle patwari had categorically mentioned that a pond measuring 86 kanals and 2 marlas was located in the revenue estate where the mill was situated

Validity

No complaint against the industrial effluent of the mill was ever filed against its management

Accused had no special need to construct a sullage carrier for the disposal of industrial effluent

Provincial Cabinet had also approved the said scheme and had released funds accordingly

Site plan of the scheme showed that the sullage was constructed for the benefit of public at large and not only for the benefit of the mill

Sullage carrier scheme was owned by the provincial government and the son of accused had been paying rent for its usage

Prosecution had not alleged that funds were not utilized on the scheme

Procedural irregularity, if any, in the exercise of jurisdiction did not amount to misuse of authority

Case of accused was one of further inquiry

Petition for grant of post-arrest bail was allowed, in circumstances.

If a raid was to be conducted in any house, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessel or any other place provisions of S. 8 of Punjab Prevention of Gambling Ordinance, 1978 was to be applied

Raid conducted by police was in complete violation and disregard of mandatory provisions of Ss. 5, 6 & 8 of Punjab Prevention of Gambling Ordinance, 1978 and nothing was recovered from accused

Investigation of case was complete and version of accused as well as complainant was verified

Involvement of accused was based on mala fide and sending accused behind bars could cause irreparable loss to his reputation

Pre-arrest bail was confirmed in circumstances.

Suit filed by Bank was decreed and judgment-debtor resisted execution of decree on grounds that property in question through inheritance from her husband which property could not be put to auction

Validity

Judgment-debtor was trying to frustrate entire execution proceedings and any indulgence at such stage of proceedings could amount to frustrate implementation of decree which otherwise had attained finality

Interference, at such stage could tantamount to interference in already decided matter which culminated by dismissal of objection petition filed by husband of judgment-debtor

Claim of judgment-debtor that transfer of property in her name through inheritance of her husband gave her fresh cause of action was without any basis and legal justification

Judgment-debtor had stepped into shoes of her husband and could not claim better title or rights in property than her husband and such claim, being without any merit was repelled

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Trial Court as judgment-debtor had failed to point out any illegality, perversity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

While attributing mala fide against any person seeking enforcement of fundamental rights as guaranteed under the Constitution a great responsibility is cast upon such objector to establish such mala fide either on the face of record or through some concrete and undisputed material before the Court convincing enough to accept such allegation of mala fide

Mere allegation of mala fide, in absence of any factual or lawful basis, cannot be considered as a sole ground for dismissing a Constitutional petition without examining merits of the case.

Accused persons were officials in education department and had allegedly involved in making fake appointments and causing loss to national exchequer

Validity

Accused persons were holders of public office and allegations levelled against them were very serious in nature and had adverse effect on public at large

Allegations were supported by documentary evidence which prima facie connected accused persons with commission of offence that accused had misused their public authority by making false/fake appointments as well as issuing/releasing salaries causing loss to national exchequer

Sufficient incriminating material was collected by authorities in shape of relevant documents viz., offer letters, appointment orders, salary bills, cheques and debit vouchers which bore signatures of accused persons connecting them with alleged white collar crime

Only a tentative assessment was to be made at bail stage and prima facie there was sufficient material available on record to connect accused persons

High Court declined to grant bail to accused persons as no mala fide on part of authorities or investigating officer was pointed out

Pre-arrest bail was dismissed in circumstances.

Bail before arrest can be granted to accused on the sole ground of mala fide.

Burden of proof is on the one who alleges mala fide on the part of complainant or investigating agency.

Mala fide has to be proved through independent and cogent evidence, mere allegation is not sufficient.

Petitioner assailed Hajj Policy Plan on grounds that government had unnecessarily increased cost of Hajj and withdrew subsidy given by former governments

Validity

Allegation of mala fide was a question of fact requiring factual inquiry

Judicial review of an administrative order/action in absence of un-rebuttable material on record regarding mala fide could not be intervened by court as order of Executive authority which otherwise was free from any illegality or jurisdictional flaw

High Court declined to interfere in matter as there was no illegality and established mala fide on part of Executive

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioners were accused of misuse of authority in allotment of land and sought pre-arrest bail on grounds of mala fide of National Accountability Bureau Authorities

Validity

Pre-arrest bail was an extraordinary relief and was only available in cases where there had been mala fide on part of complainant or investigating agency

Mala fides was often difficult to prove and could be inferred from facts and circumstances surrounding/concerning a particular case

Tinges of mala fide by National Accountability Bureau in including petitioners could exist in reference as both allotments were cancelled and there was no loss caused to the State and no benefit to any of the petitioners

High Court confirmed pre-arrest bail of petitioners as facts and circumstances made it a case of further inquiry

Pre-arrest bail was confirmed in circumstances.

Petitioners were government officials who were alleged to have misused/failed to exercise their authority by illegal regularization of government lands causing loss to national exchequer

Court, in case of bail had to make a tentative assessment of material on record and could not go into deeper appreciation of the same

Trial Court was to decide cases on merits based on evidence before it

Prima facie, in the present case, it was difficult at bail stage based on material before High Court to link all petitioners to an unbroken chain of criminality especially after Lands Committee (none of whom were accused) gave clean chit to regularization of subject land

Slight elements/hints of mala fide existed and it had become a case of further inquiry

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner was accused facing investigation with National Accountability Bureau and claimed mala fide on part of investigating officer

Validity

Under camouflage of letter dated 25-05-2004 fraud was committed by petitioner who by letter dated 13-07-2004 duly signed by him forwarded documents which he illegally managed by misusing his authority

If petitioner had not forwarded attested copies of fake and bogus documents which was his duty to check as custodian of record, land scam, of which petitioner was an integral part, could have never taken place

No mala fide existed on part of National Accountability Bureau and prima facie there was sufficient material to link petitioner with principal accused for commission of offence for which he was charged in reference

Pre-arrest bail was declined in circumstances.

Documents provided by petitioner were of material nature and could have been deeply considered by National Accountability Bureau before filing reference against petitioner

Even if National Accountability Bureau was of the view that other sufficient material was available to justify filing of reference against petitioner under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, those documents should have been disclosed to petitioner as they would have assisted him in making his defence

Element of mala fide existed on part of National Accountability Bureau in not disclosing said documents to petitioner

Such concealing of material by National Accountability Bureau from petitioner made case of further inquiry in the case

Pre-arrest bail was granted in circumstances.

In cases of pre-arrest bail there must be some element of mala fide on part of complainant or investigating agency; it is difficult for accused to expressly prove mala fide

Mala fides can be deduced/inferred from particular facts and circumstances of each case.

Mala fide is difficult to prove and often it needs to be inferred from facts and circumstances surrounding a particular case.

Petitioner was Secretary to Provincial Government and was alleged by National Accountability Bureau to have extended contract in violation of Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010

Validity

Secretary was not supposed to personally check that the work in question had been carried out when he was assured by senior members of committee that said work had been done

Persons working under the Secretary (petitioner) and who he relied on, were senior officers whom he had no reason to doubt

Other officials were supposed to check that the work was satisfactorily completed, as it was they who had assured petitioner in meeting that work had been satisfactorily carried out

Role of petitioner as Secretary was not to micromanage the affairs

Case of petitioner was of further inquiry vis-à-vis his criminality and prima facie mala fide on part of investigating officer was found in respect of the petitioner

Pre-arrest bail was confirmed in circumstances.

Petitioners being holders of public office were among the accused persons allegedly involved in bogus recruitments of teachers, however separate references were filed by the National Accountability Bureau against them

Petitioners contended that the complainant had filed separate references in order to pressurize and blackmail the accused persons

High Court had already granted bail to most of the accused persons in other references based on same allegations

Said references reflected identical allegations of bogus recruitments of teachers

Petitioners had filed application before the Trial Court for consolidation of all references being identical in nature, which application was yet to be decided by the Trial Court

Trial Court could determine whether or not, all the references pertained to the same period with regard to same allegations

Such determination would require evidence

National Accountability Bureau identified appointment of 125 teachers being bogus one, but instead of filing one reference against all accused persons, deliberately and intentionally, filed different references in piecemeal

Said act of National Accountability Bureau reflected mala fide on its part

Case of the petitioners was of further inquiry

Pre-arrest bail was allowed to the petitioners in circumstances.

Appointing authorities were to take into consideration the performance of contract employee and extension in contract appointment could only be recommended if performance of employee remained good

Behavior of employee remained unsatisfactory towards his superiors/subordinates

No mala fide had been proved on record on the part of department

Mere allegation of mala fide was not sufficient to set aside the impugned order

Case of petitioner employee was considered by the Committee with the mandate to submit its recommendations with regard to contract employees

Employee was not recommended by the said Committee for regularization/extension in the contract period

Opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the employee and thereafter inviting his reply/defence impugned order was passed

Relationship of master and servant existed where employee was on contract basis

Constitutional petition in circumstances was not maintainable

No illegality or infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned order

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Complainant had failed to mention any specific time, date and place of hatching conspiracy by the accused and could not cite any witness in FIR who had allegedly overheard the conspiracy

Pre-requisites of constituting the offence of "abetment" were not made out

Matter was reported to the police after long period of two months and statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded with further delay of four days which had reduced value of the same

Accused had made out a case of further inquiry into his guilt as envisaged under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Court could evaluate the mala fides of the complainant from the facts and circumstances of the case which was present in the present case

Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the accused was confirmed.

Plea raised by both the accused was that they were junior officers and they had acted upon the "Non-involvement certificate" issued by previous President of the Bank

Validity

Tinges of mala fide were present and NAB failed to include in the Reference the then President of the Bank who had given the "Non-involvement certificate" which petitioners had acted upon and without which no post-retirement service benefits could have been given to co-accused

Petitioners had nothing to do with re-hiring of co-accused which was apparently done so that he could face disciplinary proceedings although it was strongly objected to by the State Bank of Pakistan

Tinge of mala fide on the part of NAB existed and it was an off shoot case which had nothing to do with huge losses sustained by overseas operations through its lending operations

Relatively minor loss to the Bank was attributed to the petitioners, which could be recovered from the co-accused and there was complete lack of material to show any connivance with any of the other accused in major overseas operations scam

Pre-arrest bail was confirmed in circumstances.

Petitioner was ex-president of a Bank and was accused of misusing his authority and causing loss to the Bank in the transactions conducted by co-accused posted abroad

Validity

Petitioner had misused his authority/failed to exercise his authority for mala fide reasons in allowing two officials to remain posted abroad beyond the period provided in the Bank's overseas policy in order to shield them from potential criminal liability or disciplinary proceedings

Petitioner did not take any action against such postings when the same had come to his attention

Under overseas posting policy, before an extension could be granted, the extendees had to first return to Pakistan before they could be extended which they failed to do and thus their extension was illegal

No material was available to suggest that National Accountability Bureau acted in mala fide manner against petitioner which was a pre-condition for the grant of pre-arrest bail

Pre-arrest bail was declined in circumstances.

Mala fide could not be attributed to the legislature.

Mala fide was a question of fact and had to be specific and not vague, in absence of which, an order passed or policy framed by the competent authority could not be annulled on such ground alone.

Extraordinary concession of bail before arrest could only be granted if element of mala fide (of complainant) was apparent.

Petitioner (Highway Authority) had placed an advertisement in a newspaper for auction of collection of toll tax, in response to which respondent (District Government) filed a civil suit against petitioner for the specific performance of an agreement, to allow the respondent to administer the toll plaza

Suit was dismissed and simultaneously Station House Officer (SHO) of the area filed a complaint under S.145, Cr.P.C. for attachment of toll tax plaza, as it was likely to create unrest resulting in law and order situation, citing an incident in the year 2004, where in a protest against the collection of tax, a police constable lost his life

Magistrate ordered the attachment of the toll plaza under S.146, Cr.P.C., which order was upheld by Appellate Court and High Court

Validity

Toll tax was being collected for ten years from the year 2000 to 2010, and even after the year 2004 incident cited by the SHO, collection continued for six years

Station House Officer's complaint and process initiated by respondents was tainted with mala fide when no such action was taken during ten years when the toll tax continued to be collected until year 2010

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and impugned judgment was set aside and order of attachment passed by the Magistrate was recalled.

Petitioner was serving as Major in the Pakistan Army and wanted to get voluntary/premature retirement but he was conveyed by authorities that his request had been regretted and he should resign without any terminal benefits, therefore, he resigned

Validity

Authorities never considered application of petitioner for voluntary/premature retirement and forced him to resign from the Commission

Such act of authorities fell under the definition of mala fide, as petitioner was not allowed to explain his case nor he was made known the reasons why his application was not proceedable for voluntary / premature retirement

Petitioner like other employees was entitled to be treated under the policy applicable

Functionaries of any organization or Ministry could not be allowed discrimination on their whims, sweet will or in their own manner rather they were bound to act fairly, evenly and justly

As petitioner was condemned unheard and his application was not considered rather he was forced to resign, such was sufficient ground for setting aside the order passed by authorities being violative of principles of natural justice, which was in violation of fundamental right

Petitioner had served Armed Forces for 14-1/2 years and under the policy he was entitled for benefit to the extent of 75% and as such he could not be denied of his right to survive

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set aside order of accepting resignation of petitioner and converted the same into a voluntary/premature retirement

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Not a word of art but a fact which needed to be established by appropriate evidence.