Summary: Deceased Quota ---- Retrospective effect of SC judgement ---- Service Law ---- (a) Constitutional jurisdiction – Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 5, 9, 25 & 27 ----Appointment under deceased quota – Omission of Rule 11-A, Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1974 – Effect on accrued rights – Petitioner’s father, a Chowkidar in Sindh Subordinate Judicial Service, died in 2012 – Application for appointment under deceased quota submitted within months of death and remained pending before competent authority for over 12 years – Rule 11-A, providing such quota, remained in force until omitted in September 2024 following General Post Office v. Muhammad Jalal (PLD 2024 SC 1276) – Held, omission of Rule 11-A has prospective effect and does not extinguish rights accrued prior to omission – Delay in decision attributable solely to respondents’ inaction – Denial of appointment would be discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights. (b) Service laws – Appointment under deceased quota ----Beneficial legislation – Scope and interpretation – Rule 11-A of the APT Rules intended to provide livelihood to bereaved families of civil servants dying in service – Such provisions to be construed liberally to advance object – Department bound to process applications expeditiously and extend equal treatment to similarly placed claimants – Lethargic attitude and failure to implement prior court directions held unjustified. (c) Retrospective operation of judgments – Scope ----Judgments of superior courts – Prospective effect – Supreme Court in Muhammad Jalal case struck down provisions relating to deceased quota but protected appointments made from 2002 to 2024 – Rights that accrued prior to pronouncement unaffected – Reliance placed on Zahida Parveen v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (CPLA No.556-P/2024, decided 17.03.2025). (d) Age relaxation in public service employment ----Where delay in processing appointment under deceased quota is attributable to the department, applicant’s upper age limit to be deemed relaxed and cannot be a ground for refusal of appointment. Outcome: Petition allowed – Respondents directed to consider petitioner’s case for appointment under deceased quota in accordance with law and policy applicable at time of application (2012) – Decision to be made within three months – Upper age limit deemed relaxed.

Summary: (a) Educational institution--- ----University disciplinary proceedings---Cancellation of Ph.D. admission --- Subsequent civil suit by the student, filing of---Maintainability and effect of prior constitutional adjudication---Earlier writ petitions and civil suit arising out of same disciplinary action---Res judicata---Direct and substantial identity of issues---Bar against re-agitation of already adjudicated matter---Briefly, the respondent was a Ph.D. scholar of the petitioner University who had submitted her thesis but her admission was cancelled; her departmental appeal, two writ petitions, and civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court were all dismissed, while her separate civil suit for declaration and injunction was initially dismissed by the Trial Court but later decreed by the Appellate Court directing restoration of her admission and consideration of her thesis---The issue in the present civil revision was “whether the Appellate Court could lawfully grant such relief despite the earlier adjudications by the High Court and the Supreme Court?”--- Held: A comparative analysis of pleadings, affidavits, and documents from both the writ petitions and the civil suit revealed that the issues were directly and substantially the same---While procedural irregularities and unfairness were apparent on record, particularly from DW-01's cross-examination, the fact remained that the respondent’s case had already been adjudicated conclusively by competent constitutional forums---High Court, sitting in revisional jurisdiction, could not override the authoritative pronouncements of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court---Judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court was set aside --- Present civil revision was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Chiragh-ud-Din Bhatti v. Province of West Pakistan 1971 SCMR 447; Allah Bachaya v. Qadul 1989 SCMR 836 and Atiqur-Rehman and others v. Muhammad Ibrahim and another 1984 SCMR 1469 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.115---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.203---Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---The provision of S.115 of C.P.C. under which the High Court exercises its revisional jurisdiction, confers an exceptional and necessary power --- This power is intended to ensure the effective exercise of the Court's superintendence and visitorial authority of correction, unhindered by technicalities---While considering the scope of revisional jurisdiction, the primary factors that warrant its exercise are those expressly provided in S.115 C.P.C. namely, where the subordinate Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity---Such jurisdiction may also be invoked where the subordinate Court has decided a matter based on misreading or non-reading of material evidence, or where it has omitted to consider crucial evidence that had a direct bearing on the issues involved---Therefore, the scope of revision is narrow and is restricted to correcting jurisdictional errors or gross mis-appreciation of evidence that leads to a miscarriage of justice---However, where the first Appellate Court, while exercising its powers under S.96 C.P.C, has reappraised the evidence and reversed the findings of the Trial Court, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under S.115 C.P.C is limited---It may only interfere where the findings of the first Appellate Court are tainted by misreading or non-reading of evidence, or where the judgment is in violation of settled principles laid down by the superior Courts---Ordinarily, the first Appellate Court has the jurisdiction to reassess the entire evidence on record and reach a different conclusion---The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, while assailing the orders of subordinate Courts, is also to be exercised in conjunction with its supervisory jurisdiction under Art.203 of the Constitution, to correct orders that are perverse, fraudulent, erroneous, or passed either in express violation or ignorance of applicable law. Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt Board Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed 2014 SCMR 161 and Muhammad Feroze and others v. Muhammad Jamaat Ali 2006 SCMR 1304 rel. Abdul Waheed v. Muhammad Bilal PLD 2005 Pesh. 19 ref. Nauman Munir Paracha for Petitioner. Rana Abid Nazir Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 4th August, 2025.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 212(3)-Civil service-Promotion-Entitlement-Departmental Promotion Committee-Meeting deferred by department-Revision of promotion rules during deferred period of meeting-Effect upon pending promotion cases-Department relying upon revised promotion rules-Legality-Entitlement determined under earlier rules-Briefly, the respondents were appointed as ‘sub engineers’ in the year 1986 and were later upgraded to BPS-16 from BPS-12-Upon becoming eligible under the then-applicable service rules, their working papers for promotion to the post of ‘assistant engineer’ in BPS-17 were prepared, but the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was deferred by the department on the ground that new promotion rules were under consideration, subsequently, revised rules were notified, under which the respondents were declared ineligible for promotion, while their departmental appeals remained undecided, leading them to file service appeals before the service tribunal, which were allowed, holding them entitled to promotion in accordance with the rules applicable at the time they became eligible-The said judgment of service tribunal was challenged by the department before the Supreme Court through present civil petitions for leave to appeal-Held: Respondents had satisfied the eligibility criteria for promotion pursuant to the rules enforced at the time of their initial appointment-Consequently, their cases were fully ripe for consideration by DPC-The subsequent delay in convening meeting of the DPC was an administrative failure attributable solely to the department and could not be imputed to the respondents-The subsequently amended rules were to operate prospectively unless a contrary intimation was manifestly evident from the statute-Question of whether the amended rules were to be applied retrospectively or prospectively was beyond the scope of DPC’s mandate-The DPC also did not have the authority to delay the meeting while waiting for amendment of the rules-Leave was declined and present petition was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Civil service- - Departmental promotion committee-Deferment of meeting by department-Subsequent revision of promotion rules during deferred period of meeting-Effect on pending promotion cases - Department’s reliance on revised rules - Legality and permissibility-Whoever fulfills the prescribed eligibility conditions acquires a legitimate expectation to be considered for promotion in accordance with the prevailing rules. (c) Civil service- -Seniority or eligibility for promotion, matter of-Department giving prospective effect to the subsequently introduced amendment in promotion rules-Effect upon employees appointed prior to amendment-Legality-Correct interpretation of statute in such circumstances-Where an amendment adversely effects the accrued substantive rights, such as those pertaining to seniority or eligibility for promotion, it cannot be applied retrospectively to the employees appointed prior to amendment. (d) Interpretation of statutes- -Retrospective application of a statue-Scope-Circumstances-Retrospective application is permissible only if the parent statute, which confers the rule making power, contains an express provision to the effect-In absence of such explicit legislative sanction, applying amended provision of law retrospectively is legally untenable.

Summary: (Against the judgment / order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar in Appeals Nos. 1183 and 1184 of 2023). (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 212(3)---Civil service---Promotion---Entitlement---Departmental Promotion Committee---Meeting deferred by department---Revision of promotion rules during deferred period of meeting---Effect upon pending promotion cases---Department relying upon revised promotion rules---Legality---Entitlement determined under earlier rules---Briefly, the respondents were appointed as ‘sub engineers’ in the year 1986 and were later upgraded to BPS-16 from BPS-12---Upon becoming eligible under the then-applicable service rules, their working papers for promotion to the post of ‘assistant engineer’ in BPS-17 were prepared, but the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was deferred by the department on the ground that new promotion rules were under consideration, subsequently, revised rules were notified, under which the respondents were declared ineligible for promotion, while their departmental appeals remained undecided, leading them to file service appeals before the service tribunal, which were allowed, holding them entitled to promotion in accordance with the rules applicable at the time they became eligible---The said judgment of service tribunal was challenged by the department before the Supreme Court through present civil petitions for leave to appeal---Held: Respondents had satisfied the eligibility criteria for promotion pursuant to the rules enforced at the time of their initial appointment---Consequently, their cases were fully ripe for consideration by DPC---The subsequent delay in convening meeting of the DPC was an administrative failure attributable solely to the department and could not be imputed to the respondents---The subsequently amended rules were to operate prospectively unless a contrary intimation was manifestly evident from the statute---Question of whether the amended rules were to be applied retrospectively or prospectively was beyond the scope of DPC’s mandate---The DPC also did not have the authority to delay the meeting while waiting for amendment of the rules---Leave was declined and present petition was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Civil service--- ---- Departmental promotion committee ---Deferment of meeting by department---Subsequent revision of promotion rules during deferred period of meeting--- Effect on pending promotion cases --- Department’s reliance on revised rules --- Legality and permissibility ---Whoever fulfills the prescribed eligibility conditions acquires a legitimate expectation to be considered for promotion in accordance with the prevailing rules. (c) Civil service--- ----Seniority or eligibility for promotion, matter of---Department giving prospective effect to the subsequently introduced amendment in promotion rules---Effect upon employees appointed prior to amendment---Legality---Correct interpretation of statute in such circumstances---Where an amendment adversely effects the accrued substantive rights, such as those pertaining to seniority or eligibility for promotion, it cannot be applied retrospectively to the employees appointed prior to amendment. (d) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Retrospective application of a statue---Scope---Circumstances---Retrospective application is permissible only if the parent statute, which confers the rule making power, contains an express provision to the effect---In absence of such explicit legislative sanction, applying amended provision of law retrospectively is legally untenable. Bashar Naveed, Additional Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th July, 2025.

Summary: (a) Service law — Promotion — Amendment of rules — Prospective versus retrospective effect — Sub Engineers (BPS-16) — Khyber Pakhtunkhwa C&W Department — Respondents became eligible for promotion to Assistant Engineer (BPS-17) under the then-existing rules, but the Department deferred DPC meetings pending proposed amendments; new rules notified later (20-01-2023) rendered them ineligible — Held, that civil servants who had fulfilled eligibility criteria under the prevailing rules acquired a legitimate expectation to be considered for promotion under those rules; departmental delay cannot defeat such expectation. Amendments affecting seniority or eligibility operate prospectively unless the parent statute expressly authorizes retrospective effect — no such authority existed here. (b) Administrative law — Legitimate expectation and fairness — Once promotion cases were ripe for DPC consideration, withholding them to await rule amendments amounted to arbitrary exercise of discretion, contrary to settled principles of fairness and good governance — Departmental Promotion Committee has no power to postpone meetings or apply amendments retrospectively to deprive officers of accrued rights. (c) Interpretation of rules — Presumption against retrospectivity — Promotion and seniority rules ordinarily regulate future service conditions; they cannot retrospectively curtail an accrued right or expectation unless explicit legislative mandate to that effect exists. (d) Constitutional guarantees — Arts. 4, 9 & 25 — Retrospective deprivation of accrued promotional rights without lawful authority offends due process, equality and protection of law. (e) Disposition — Petitions dismissed; Service Tribunal’s consolidated judgment dated 25-07-2024 upheld; respondents entitled to promotion to Assistant Engineer (BPS-17) in accordance with rules applicable when they became eligible.

Summary: (a) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)- -Sched., S.Os. 1(b) & 12-Disciplinary proceedings-Submitting a fake medical expenses bill, allegation of-Inquiry officer failing to call key witness from dental clinic for verification of the bill-Effect-Burden of proof to establish misconduct in inquiry proceedings-Duty of employer to prove misconduct-Scope-The petitioner, a permanent workman within the meaning of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, was employed by the respondent company-In September 2015, he underwent a dental procedure for which he submitted a medical bill of Rs.10,000 to the company for reimbursement under the approved policy-Subsequently, on 1st December 2015, he was served a show-cause notice alleging that the bill was bogus-Despite denying the allegations and participating in the inquiry, he was dismissed from service-The petitioner filed a grievance before the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), where a single-bench upheld his dismissal, but the full-bench later set aside that decision and ordered his reinstatement-The company then filed a Constitutional petition before the High Court which was allowed restoring the order of dismissal, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court-Held: Since there were several bills for the dental treatment available on record, it was the responsibility of the inquiry officer either to call the doctor or the representative of dental clinic for evidence in the inquiry to prove which document issued by them was true and correct and which document was fake or forged-When the contradictory receipts were available on record it was obligatory for the inquiry officer to call the witnesses from the hospital for evidence and verification with the right of cross-examination to the petitioner without which the truth could not be unearthed-In the present case, the evidence of the representative of dental clinic/doctor was inevitable for proving the guilt whether the petitioner paid Rs.7000 or Rs.10,000/- and whether he really submitted a bill of excess amount or not-The witness from the hospital could be the star witness in this case who was ignored and no efforts were made by the management representative to call him before the inquiry officer as management’s witness and no burden could be shifted on the employee to call him if the management did not want to verify or confront those medical bills to their star/key witness which by their own mistake lost its evidentiary value and nothing proved on record which bill of hospital/clinic was genuine-Appellate judgment of full bench NIRC was quite rational and judicious-Impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside and appellate judgment of NIRC’s full bench was restored-Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances. Sakhib Zar v. Messrs K-Electric Limited and others 2024 SCMR 1722 rel. (b) Employment- -Quantum of punishment-Determination-Prerogative of the employer-Prerequisite-Misconduct has to be established and employee should be found guilty-Proportionality of the penalty-Scope-As soon as the act of misconduct is established and the employee is found guilty after due process of law, it is the prerogative of the employer to decide the quantum of punishment, out of the various penalties provided in law-The casual or unpremeditated observation that the penalty imposed is not proportionate with the seriousness of the act of misconduct is not adequate but the order must show that the court and tribunal has applied its mind and exercised its discretion in a structured and lawful manner-Court or tribunal in exceptional or appropriate cases or circumstances, may examine the quantum of punishment to figure out the proportionality and reasonableness and may also nullify or overturn such punishment if found out of proportion vis-à-vis the act of misconduct and in this scenario, the punishment awarded by the competent authority may be revisited and converted into some lesser or alternative punishment if provided under the law but in order to exercise such jurisdiction for mitigation, the set of circumstances of each and every case have to be considered minutely. (c) Employment- -Disciplinary proceedings-It is the prerogative and inherent right of employer to trigger the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the law to address the misconduct of committed by any employee but the course of action for encountering any act of misconduct should stick to the principle of natural justice and the set of guidelines provided to ensure due process of law. (d) Employment- (e) Employment- -Inquiry proceedings-Purpose and essence-Scope-The purpose of domestic inquiry under the labour laws, if taken so lightly, destroys the whole substratum-Regardless of the fact that inquiry officer in the domestic inquiry cannot be equated with well-trained judicial officer, the bare minimum requirements of natural justice and due process are commonsensical and essential elements for the conscience of inquiry officer before finding an employee guilty of misconduct and sending inquiry report/recommendations to the management. (f) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 199-Writ of certiorari-Scope and essence-This type of writ can be issued when a lower court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial forum/authority surpasses or transcends its jurisdiction-The higher courts issue writ of certiorari to nullify and overturn ultra vires actions for impeding the misuse and abuse of judicial powers-Exercise of this writ jurisdiction is unquestionably available in case of obvious contravention or infringement of natural justice or right to fair trial/due process-Under this writ jurisdiction, as engrained in the Constitution, under Article 199, the High Courts have wide-ranging powers within their territorial jurisdiction to issue writ of certiorari not only in the case of violation of any fundamental right but also against judicial or quasi-judicial decisions/orders if for any reason they are found against the law-In nutshell, this remedy can be availed and writ of certiorari can be issued by the High Court when a lower body acts without or in excess of jurisdiction; when there is a violation of natural justice; when there is a clear error of law on the face of the record; when the decision is based on fraud, mala fide intent, or corruption and when the authority refuses to exercise its jurisdiction despite being legally bound to do so. Syed Yagub v. Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477 rel.

Summary: (On appeal from the Judgment dated 11.10.2022 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in C.P. No. D-4469 of 2019). (a) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--- ----Sched., S.Os. 1(b) & 12---Disciplinary proceedings---Submitting a fake medical expenses bill, allegation of---Inquiry officer failing to call key witness from dental clinic for verification of the bill---Effect---Burden of proof to establish misconduct in inquiry proceedings---Duty of employer to prove misconduct---Scope---The petitioner, a permanent workman within the meaning of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, was employed by the respondent company---In September 2015, he underwent a dental procedure for which he submitted a medical bill of Rs.10,000 to the company for reimbursement under the approved policy---Subsequently, on 1st December 2015, he was served a show-cause notice alleging that the bill was bogus---Despite denying the allegations and participating in the inquiry, he was dismissed from service---The petitioner filed a grievance before the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), where a single-bench upheld his dismissal, but the full-bench later set aside that decision and ordered his reinstatement---The company then filed a Constitutional petition before the High Court which was allowed restoring the order of dismissal, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court---Held: Since there were several bills for the dental treatment available on record, it was the responsibility of the inquiry officer either to call the doctor or the representative of dental clinic for evidence in the inquiry to prove which document issued by them was true and correct and which document was fake or forged---When the contradictory receipts were available on record it was obligatory for the inquiry officer to call the witnesses from the hospital for evidence and verification with the right of cross-examination to the petitioner without which the truth could not be unearthed---In the present case, the evidence of the representative of dental clinic/doctor was inevitable for proving the guilt whether the petitioner paid Rs.7000 or Rs.10,000/- and whether he really submitted a bill of excess amount or not---The witness from the hospital could be the star witness in this case who was ignored and no efforts were made by the management representative to call him before the inquiry officer as management’s witness and no burden could be shifted on the employee to call him if the management did not want to verify or confront those medical bills to their star/key witness which by their own mistake lost its evidentiary value and nothing proved on record which bill of hospital/clinic was genuine---Appellate judgment of full bench NIRC was quite rational and judicious---Impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside and appellate judgment of NIRC’s full bench was restored---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances. Sakhib Zar v. Messrs K-Electric Limited and others 2024 SCMR 1722 rel. (b) Employment--- ----Quantum of punishment---Determination---Prerogative of the employer---Prerequisite---Misconduct has to be established and employee should be found guilty---Proportionality of the penalty---Scope---As soon as the act of misconduct is established and the employee is found guilty after due process of law, it is the prerogative of the employer to decide the quantum of punishment, out of the various penalties provided in law---The casual or unpremeditated observation that the penalty imposed is not proportionate with the seriousness of the act of misconduct is not adequate but the order must show that the court and tribunal has applied its mind and exercised its discretion in a structured and lawful manner---Court or tribunal in exceptional or appropriate cases or circumstances, may examine the quantum of punishment to figure out the proportionality and reasonableness and may also nullify or overturn such punishment if found out of proportion vis-à-vis the act of misconduct and in this scenario, the punishment awarded by the competent authority may be revisited and converted into some lesser or alternative punishment if provided under the law but in order to exercise such jurisdiction for mitigation, the set of circumstances of each and every case have to be considered minutely. Sakhib Zar v. Messrs K-Electric Limited and others 2024 SCMR 1722 rel. (c) Employment--- ----Disciplinary proceedings---It is the prerogative and inherent right of employer to trigger the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the law to address the misconduct of committed by any employee but the course of action for encountering any act of misconduct should stick to the principle of natural justice and the set of guidelines provided to ensure due process of law. (d) Employment--- ----Disciplinary proceedings---Misconduct---Burden of proof---Employer’s obligation to prove misconduct---Scope---In the disciplinary proceedings under the Industrial Relations Laws, the primary burden rests on the employer to prove the misconduct so that the matter be decided on preponderance of the evidence which is so clear, credible and gives support to the finale with little room for doubt---By and large, when any employee challenges his termination or dismissal from service, the burden often shifts upon the employer to establish that the action was based on independent, unbiased and logical reasons and while terminating the employee or dismissing the employee from service, the principle of natural justice and due process was religiously followed and the employer has to produce substantial evidence to persuade the court that the decision was not motivated by any revenge, bias and/or with any prejudiced aspiration---To prove the guilt on the charges of misconduct is a serious matter and at least for the delinquent, the stakes are much higher than the employer, therefore, before declaring guilty, due diligence should be made. (e) Employment--- ----Inquiry proceedings---Purpose and essence---Scope---The purpose of domestic inquiry under the labour laws, if taken so lightly, destroys the whole substratum---Regardless of the fact that inquiry officer in the domestic inquiry cannot be equated with well-trained judicial officer, the bare minimum requirements of natural justice and due process are commonsensical and essential elements for the conscience of inquiry officer before finding an employee guilty of misconduct and sending inquiry report/recommendations to the management. (f) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Writ of certiorari---Scope and essence---This type of writ can be issued when a lower court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial forum/authority surpasses or transcends its jurisdiction---The higher courts issue writ of certiorari to nullify and overturn ultra vires actions for impeding the misuse and abuse of judicial powers---Exercise of this writ jurisdiction is unquestionably available in case of obvious contravention or infringement of natural justice or right to fair trial/due process---Under this writ jurisdiction, as engrained in the Constitution, under Article 199, the High Courts have wide-ranging powers within their territorial jurisdiction to issue writ of certiorari not only in the case of violation of any fundamental right but also against judicial or quasi-judicial decisions/orders if for any reason they are found against the law---In nutshell, this remedy can be availed and writ of certiorari can be issued by the High Court when a lower body acts without or in excess of jurisdiction; when there is a violation of natural justice; when there is a clear error of law on the face of the record; when the decision is based on fraud, mala fide intent, or corruption and when the authority refuses to exercise its jurisdiction despite being legally bound to do so. Syed Yagub v. Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477 rel. Imtiaz Ali Solangi, Advocate High Court for Petitioner (with special permission of the Court). Faisal Mehmood Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd July, 2025.

Summary: (On appeal from the Judgment dated 11.10.2022 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in C.P. No. D-4469 of 2019). (a) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--- ----Sched., S.Os. 1(b) & 12---Disciplinary proceedings---Submitting a fake medical expenses bill, allegation of---Inquiry officer failing to call key witness from dental clinic for verification of the bill---Effect---Burden of proof to establish misconduct in inquiry proceedings---Duty of employer to prove misconduct---Scope---The petitioner, a permanent workman within the meaning of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, was employed by the respondent company---In September 2015, he underwent a dental procedure for which he submitted a medical bill of Rs.10,000 to the company for reimbursement under the approved policy---Subsequently, on 1st December 2015, he was served a show-cause notice alleging that the bill was bogus---Despite denying the allegations and participating in the inquiry, he was dismissed from service---The petitioner filed a grievance before the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), where a single-bench upheld his dismissal, but the full-bench later set aside that decision and ordered his reinstatement---The company then filed a Constitutional petition before the High Court which was allowed restoring the order of dismissal, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court---Held: Since there were several bills for the dental treatment available on record, it was the responsibility of the inquiry officer either to call the doctor or the representative of dental clinic for evidence in the inquiry to prove which document issued by them was true and correct and which document was fake or forged---When the contradictory receipts were available on record it was obligatory for the inquiry officer to call the witnesses from the hospital for evidence and verification with the right of cross-examination to the petitioner without which the truth could not be unearthed---In the present case, the evidence of the representative of dental clinic/doctor was inevitable for proving the guilt whether the petitioner paid Rs.7000 or Rs.10,000/- and whether he really submitted a bill of excess amount or not---The witness from the hospital could be the star witness in this case who was ignored and no efforts were made by the management representative to call him before the inquiry officer as management’s witness and no burden could be shifted on the employee to call him if the management did not want to verify or confront those medical bills to their star/key witness which by their own mistake lost its evidentiary value and nothing proved on record which bill of hospital/clinic was genuine---Appellate judgment of full bench NIRC was quite rational and judicious---Impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside and appellate judgment of NIRC’s full bench was restored---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances. Sakhib Zar v. Messrs K-Electric Limited and others 2024 SCMR 1722 rel. (b) Employment--- ----Quantum of punishment---Determination---Prerogative of the employer---Prerequisite---Misconduct has to be established and employee should be found guilty---Proportionality of the penalty---Scope---As soon as the act of misconduct is established and the employee is found guilty after due process of law, it is the prerogative of the employer to decide the quantum of punishment, out of the various penalties provided in law---The casual or unpremeditated observation that the penalty imposed is not proportionate with the seriousness of the act of misconduct is not adequate but the order must show that the court and tribunal has applied its mind and exercised its discretion in a structured and lawful manner---Court or tribunal in exceptional or appropriate cases or circumstances, may examine the quantum of punishment to figure out the proportionality and reasonableness and may also nullify or overturn such punishment if found out of proportion vis-à-vis the act of misconduct and in this scenario, the punishment awarded by the competent authority may be revisited and converted into some lesser or alternative punishment if provided under the law but in order to exercise such jurisdiction for mitigation, the set of circumstances of each and every case have to be considered minutely. Sakhib Zar v. Messrs K-Electric Limited and others 2024 SCMR 1722 rel. (c) Employment--- ----Disciplinary proceedings---It is the prerogative and inherent right of employer to trigger the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the law to address the misconduct of committed by any employee but the course of action for encountering any act of misconduct should stick to the principle of natural justice and the set of guidelines provided to ensure due process of law. (d) Employment--- ----Disciplinary proceedings---Misconduct---Burden of proof---Employer’s obligation to prove misconduct---Scope---In the disciplinary proceedings under the Industrial Relations Laws, the primary burden rests on the employer to prove the misconduct so that the matter be decided on preponderance of the evidence which is so clear, credible and gives support to the finale with little room for doubt---By and large, when any employee challenges his termination or dismissal from service, the burden often shifts upon the employer to establish that the action was based on independent, unbiased and logical reasons and while terminating the employee or dismissing the employee from service, the principle of natural justice and due process was religiously followed and the employer has to produce substantial evidence to persuade the court that the decision was not motivated by any revenge, bias and/or with any prejudiced aspiration---To prove the guilt on the charges of misconduct is a serious matter and at least for the delinquent, the stakes are much higher than the employer, therefore, before declaring guilty, due diligence should be made. (e) Employment--- ----Inquiry proceedings---Purpose and essence---Scope---The purpose of domestic inquiry under the labour laws, if taken so lightly, destroys the whole substratum---Regardless of the fact that inquiry officer in the domestic inquiry cannot be equated with well-trained judicial officer, the bare minimum requirements of natural justice and due process are commonsensical and essential elements for the conscience of inquiry officer before finding an employee guilty of misconduct and sending inquiry report/recommendations to the management. (f) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Writ of certiorari---Scope and essence---This type of writ can be issued when a lower court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial forum/authority surpasses or transcends its jurisdiction---The higher courts issue writ of certiorari to nullify and overturn ultra vires actions for impeding the misuse and abuse of judicial powers---Exercise of this writ jurisdiction is unquestionably available in case of obvious contravention or infringement of natural justice or right to fair trial/due process---Under this writ jurisdiction, as engrained in the Constitution, under Article 199, the High Courts have wide-ranging powers within their territorial jurisdiction to issue writ of certiorari not only in the case of violation of any fundamental right but also against judicial or quasi-judicial decisions/orders if for any reason they are found against the law---In nutshell, this remedy can be availed and writ of certiorari can be issued by the High Court when a lower body acts without or in excess of jurisdiction; when there is a violation of natural justice; when there is a clear error of law on the face of the record; when the decision is based on fraud, mala fide intent, or corruption and when the authority refuses to exercise its jurisdiction despite being legally bound to do so. Syed Yagub v. Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477 rel. Imtiaz Ali Solangi, Advocate High Court for Petitioner (with special permission of the Court). Faisal Mehmood Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd July, 2025.

Summary: Regularization cannot be claimed as a right but a privilege extended and subjected to certain conditionalities. 311Crl. Appeal 35879/25 Nadeem Liaqat Vs The State etc. Justice Abher Gul Khan 23-07- 2025 2025 LHC 5200

Summary: (a) Pakistan Citizenship Act (II of 1951)- -S.17-Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952, R.23(b)-Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199-Domicile Certificate and Permanent Resident Certificate, issuance of-Prerequisites and criterion-Continuous residence and supporting ownership or tenancy records, proving of-Mandatory ten-year residency criterion-Scope-The petitioners challenged the impugned order whereby the domicile of petitioner No.1, originally issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan in 1994, was cancelled on 21.01.2025 by the Deputy Commissioner, Quetta, on grounds of prior domicile-Petitioner No.1 had permanently shifted to Quetta in 2003, married there, and since then resided continuously with his family, including petitioner Nos.2 to 6, who were all born and raised in Quetta-Upon petitioner No.2's application for issuance of domicile of District Quetta, required for higher education, the application was rejected under the impugned order-Held: The petitioner No.1 had a domicile of Dera Ghazi Khan issued in his favour on 25.04.1994 which was cancelled on his own request on 21.01.2025 by the Deputy Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan-With respect to seeking domicile of District Quetta by the children of the petitioner No.1 for higher studies it was necessary to clarify that the petitioner No.2 (daughter of petitioner No.1) had not annexed her educational credentials to establish her permanent residence in Quetta City-Petitioner No.2 was born on 17.10.2005 and after a considerable delay of thirteen years she obtained her birth registration certificate on 18.01.2018 which showed mala fide on her part-Petitioners failed to provide adequate proof of compliance with the SOPs including mandatory 10-year residency critera and supporting evidence such as valid property ownership or long terms rental agreements-No infirmity or perversity was found in the impugned order warranting interference by the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction-Petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. (b) Pakistan Citizenship Act (II of 1951)- -S. 17-Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952, R.23(b)-Domicile certificate, acquiring of-Procedural framework-Criterion-Factors to be considered stated-Legally domicile in Pakistan is governed by S. 17 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 and R. 23 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952-These provide the basis and procedural framework for acquiring domicile-Rule 23(b) empowers the competent authority to demand evidence establishing both continuous residence and intent to remain-Factors considered include length of stay, family ties, property ownership, school enrollment, local employment, and community participation-Therefore, person seeking issuance of domicile must substantiate their permanent and continuous residence and intent to remain at the place through credible evidence. (c) Pakistan Citizenship Act (II of 1951)- -S.17-Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952, R. 23-Domicile and Permanent Residency Certificate-Distinction-Scope-The word "Domicile", derived from the Latin"domicilium," denotes a person's permanent legal home and establishes their legal affiliation with a specific territorial jurisdiction-It plays a central role in determining personal legal status, including matters of marriage, succession, and eligibility for region-specific rights and obligations-Domicile is not synonymous with residence or nationality; it is a unique legal concept rooted in both fact and intention-Classically, domicile consists of two elements: (i) factum; actual residence in a place, and (ii) animus manendi; the intention to remain there indefinitely-Three primary types of domicile are recognized: (1) domicile of origin, acquired at birth; (2) domicile of choice, acquired upon lawful settlement in a new place with intent to remain; and (3) domicile of dependence, which applies to minors and others under legal incapacity-A person may have several residences but only one domicile at a time, and a domicile persists until displaced by a new one through both residence and intent (facto et animo). Joan Mary Carter v. Albert William Carter PLD 1961 SC 616 and Muhammad Yar Khan v. Deputy Commissioner 1980 SCMR 456 rel. Mst. Kishwar Rehman v. Government of Balochistan PLD 2001 Quetta 78; Mubashar Mehmood v. Home and Tribal Affairs PLD 2018 Balochistan 49 and Muhammad Zaryab Ali v. Ministry of Religious Affairs 2019 PLC (C.S.) 1361 ref. (d) Fundamental Rights- -Administrative guidelines-Such guidelines when issued within the bounds of statutory authority and aimed at maintaining public order or verifying claims, do not infringe constitutional rights.