Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The petitioner, Faisal Ali, a police constable, was dismissed from service through an office order dated November 21, 2014, on grounds of misconduct, inefficiency, and conviction in a criminal case (FIR No. 206/11). He had allegedly absented himself from duty without permission and was convicted of serious criminal offenses, tarnishing the reputation of the police department. The petitioner’s departmental appeal was dismissed, and the Punjab Service Tribunal upheld his dismissal. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, challenging the dismissal and procedural irregularities in the inquiry process. ------- Issues: ------- 1) Was the petitioner provided a fair opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary inquiry? ------- 2) Were the allegations in the show cause notice consistent with the reasons cited in the dismissal order? ------- 3) Was the dismissal order proportionate to the alleged misconduct, especially given the petitioner’s subsequent acquittal in the criminal case? ------- 4) Did the Punjab Service Tribunal properly address the petitioner’s grievances and procedural deficiencies in the inquiry process? ------- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Fair Opportunity in Disciplinary Inquiry: Holding: The petitioner was not provided a fair opportunity to defend himself. Reasoning: The inquiry process was conducted ex-parte without adequately involving the petitioner or giving him a chance to cross-examine witnesses or present his defense. Procedural norms and principles of natural justice were violated. ------- Consistency of Allegations in Show Cause Notice and Dismissal Order: Holding: There was a glaring inconsistency between the allegations in the show cause notice and the reasons cited in the dismissal order. Reasoning: The show cause notice dated October 27, 2014, focused on absence from duty, but the dismissal order emphasized conviction in a criminal case as the primary ground. The Tribunal overlooked this inconsistency, which undermined the validity of the disciplinary action. ------- Proportionality of Dismissal: Holding: The dismissal was disproportionate given the petitioner’s subsequent acquittal in the criminal case. Reasoning: The petitioner was acquitted on November 29, 2014, when the conviction was set aside on appeal. The dismissal, based on a criminal conviction that was later overturned, lacked justification. ------- Tribunal’s Judgment: Holding: The Punjab Service Tribunal failed to properly address the procedural irregularities and the inconsistency in the disciplinary action. Reasoning: The Tribunal did not evaluate whether the inquiry process adhered to the principles of natural justice or whether the dismissal order aligned with the allegations in the show cause notice. Outcome: The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and set aside the impugned judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The case was remanded to the Service Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. ------- Citations/Precedents: Ijaz Badshah v. Secretary, Establishment Division, Govt. of Pakistan (2023 SCMR 407): Established that disciplinary actions must adhere to principles of proportionality and reasonableness. ------- Noor Muhammad v. Sarwar Khan (PLD 1985 SC 131): Highlighted the importance of procedural fairness in disciplinary inquiries. ------- Muhammad Zahoor v. Lal Muhammad (1988 SCMR 322): Reinforced that disciplinary actions must align with the specific allegations raised in the show cause notice. ------- Key Observations: Procedural fairness is a cornerstone of disciplinary inquiries, and any deviation invalidates the resulting actions. ----- Proportionality in disciplinary decisions ensures a balance between public interest and individual rights. ------Dismissal orders based on allegations not stated in the show cause notice undermine due process and fairness. ------- The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to natural justice and procedural requirements in disciplinary matters, ensuring accountability while safeguarding the rights of employees.

Summary: Acquittal upheld ---- ''Though injured witness is stamped witness yet cannot be relied upon simply for the reason that he has stamp of injury on his body if otherwise his deposition is not confidence inspiring.'' ---- Background: The appellants were convicted for murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. The incident took place during a wedding ceremony in 2014, where a dispute arose due to an earlier elopement and marriage of a woman related to the accused with the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with others, fired at the deceased and injured another person. The appellants challenged their convictions, while the complainant sought enhancement of the sentence and compensation through a revision petition. ------ Issues: ------ 1) Whether the appellants’ conviction under section 302(b) PPC was legally justified based on the evidence presented. ------ 2) Whether procedural irregularities and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case raised reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal. ------ 3) Whether the complainant’s request for enhanced sentence and compensation was supported by sufficient legal grounds. ------ Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Conviction of the Appellants: The court found substantial inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. The delay in filing the FIR, the unexplained delay in medical treatment for the injured witness, and contradictions between the medical evidence and eyewitness testimonies led the court to question the credibility of the prosecution’s case. The court also noted that injuries sustained by one of the appellants were not explained by the prosecution, further weakening its argument. ------ Procedural Irregularities: The court highlighted issues such as the delay in reporting the incident, the involvement of a non-witness in drafting the complaint, and the absence of key details in the FIR and other documents. These factors suggested possible deliberation and fabrication in the filing of the case. The court also found discrepancies in the site plan and noted that the forensic evidence contradicted the prosecution’s version of events. ------ Outcome: The appellants were acquitted due to reasonable doubt, as the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The revision petition for sentence enhancement and additional compensation was dismissed. ------ Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230)

Summary: Urdu Version of majority judgment.

Summary: This appeal arises from a dispute over an agreement to sell property located in Islamabad, specifically Plot in Sector G-10/4. The appellant, Ufaid Gul, filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement against the respondents, claiming that an agreement had been entered into with Respondent No. 1, who falsely claimed to be the owner. The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the appellant. However, the Islamabad High Court, in its judgment dated 04.07.2022, allowed the appeal of Respondent No. 1, setting aside the trial court's decision. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Whether the appellant, Ufaid Gul, was entitled to specific performance of the agreement to sell, given that Respondent No. 1 was not the true owner of the property. ----- 2) Whether the High Court correctly allowed the appeal despite the alleged contributory negligence in filing the appeal before a forum lacking jurisdiction. ----- 3) Whether the delay in filing the appeal due to jurisdictional confusion should have been condoned. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ----- Specific Performance Claim: The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's claim for specific performance, finding that the agreement to sell was entered into with a party (Respondent No. 1) who had no legal ownership of the property. The court emphasized that the appellant's reliance on a payment of Rs. 5,000,000 as part of the agreement did not entitle him to specific performance when the agreement was with a party that was not the rightful owner. The court noted that specific performance is a discretionary relief, and even if an agreement is proven, the court has discretion to refuse the decree if equity does not favor the plaintiff. ----- Contributory Negligence: The court addressed the issue of the wrong forum (Additional District Judge) initially hearing the case, which contributed to procedural delays. The court cited precedents establishing that a party should not be deprived of relief solely due to such procedural issues, particularly when the court itself contributed to the error by accepting jurisdiction over the case. The court found that both the appellant and the court were responsible for the procedural delay, but this did not entitle the appellant to the relief sought. ----- Condonation of Delay: The court upheld the High Court's decision to condone the delay in filing the appeal, agreeing that the confusion over jurisdiction contributed to the delay. The court reiterated that the legal principle "an act of the court shall prejudice no one" applied, meaning that procedural lapses by the court should not harm a party's legal rights. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's decision was affirmed. ----- Outcome: The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court found no merit in the appellant's claim for specific performance, and the contributory negligence in the procedural delays was attributed to both the appellant and the court. ----- Citations/Precedents: Sherin v. Fazal Muhammad (1995 SCMR 584): Established the principle of contributory negligence when a court misleads a party or causes a delay. Ghulam Ali v. Akbar alias Akoor (PLD 1991 SC 957): Reinforced the principle that "an act of the court shall prejudice no one."

Summary: ''The appointment of Deans in Public Sector Universities is required to be made in accordance with applicable law; and the Circular dated 29.12.2008 issued by Governor Punjab prescribing additional criteria with respect to appointment of Deans cannot be followed unless the same is incorporated in the relevant Statutes or Regulations or Rules of Public Sector University.'' Background: Three petitions were brought before the court concerning the appointment of Deans at Public Sector Universities (PSU) in Punjab. A circular issued in 2008 by the Governor of Punjab, in his capacity as Chancellor, proposed a multi-factor criterion for appointing Deans at universities. The circular's legality was challenged, with the petitioners arguing that the appointments of Deans at two universities were unlawful and not based on merit. The main issue in the case was whether the circular held any legal authority and if the appointments were made according to law. ----Issues: 1- Does the 2008 circular prescribing criteria for Dean appointments at PSUs have any legal backing? Were the challenged appointments of Deans at the universities done according to the law and statutory provisions? ----2-Does the Governor of Punjab have the authority to prescribe appointment criteria without incorporating it into the universities' statutes or regulations? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Circular's Legal Status: The court held that the 2008 circular lacked legal force because it had not been adopted or incorporated into the relevant statutes, regulations, or rules of the universities. Therefore, it could not serve as a valid criterion for appointments. --Dean Appointments: The court found that the appointments of the Deans in question were made according to the statutes of the universities, which provide that the Dean must be selected from the three most senior professors within the faculty. The court noted that the circular, having no statutory basis, did not invalidate the appointments, which were made under the prevailing laws. --Governor's Authority: The court ruled that while the Governor, as Chancellor, may propose criteria for appointments, such criteria must be incorporated into the statutes or regulations of the university. Since the circular was never formally adopted into the universities’ regulations, it had no legal effect, and the statutory law governing appointments remained valid. As a result: W.P. No. 27179/2023 was allowed, and the 2008 circular was declared void. W.P. Nos. 11917/2023 and 2455/2022 were dismissed, with the appointments upheld as being in accordance with the law. -----Citations/Precedents: Dr. Iqrar Ahmad Khan v. Dr. Muhammad Ashraf and others (2021 SCMR 1509) Dr. Akbar Anjum v. Bahauddin Zakariya University, etc. (2022 LHC 1824) Dr. Munir Khan Khattak v. Chancellor, The University of Agriculture, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 4 others (2017 PLC (C.S.) Note 10)

Summary: Detailed order ----- Issues: 1) Whether SIC or PTI is entitled to the reserved seats in the National and Provincial Assemblies based on the joining of independent returned candidates. ---2) The legal consequences of PTI's ineligibility to receive an election symbol under Section 215(5) of the Elections Act, 2017, and whether this affects its other constitutional rights. ---3) Whether the explanation to Rule 94 of the Elections Rules 2017, which defines “political party” as one to which a symbol has been allocated, is ultra vires the Elections Act and the Constitution. ---4) The constitutional and legal rights of political parties to nominate candidates and participate in elections, and whether candidates who were nominated by a party declared ineligible for a symbol could still claim the reserved seats. ---- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: SIC's Claim Rejected: The court upheld the ECP’s decision, rejecting SIC’s application for the allocation of reserved seats. The court found that SIC could not claim these seats as the independent returned candidates who joined SIC did not fulfill the necessary conditions for proportional representation under the Constitution. ---- PTI's Claim of Reserved Seats: The court clarified that PTI’s failure to receive an election symbol due to non-compliance with the requirements for intra-party elections did not affect its other constitutional and statutory rights. PTI candidates could still exercise their rights under the Constitution, but the ECP’s refusal to allocate the symbol remained valid. ----- Explanation to Rule 94 Ultra Vires: The court found that the explanation to Rule 94 of the Election Rules, 2017, which restricts the definition of a political party to those allocated a symbol, was ultra vires the Constitution and the Elections Act. The court ruled that this rule cannot undermine the constitutional right of a political party to claim its due share of proportional representation for reserved seats. ---- Fundamental Right to Political Participation: The court reaffirmed the right to form and operate a political party, as guaranteed under Article 17(2) of the Constitution, as encompassing the right to nominate candidates for elections. The court also emphasized that the right to vote and to be represented fairly is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution. ---- Citations/Precedents: Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1988 SC 416) Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1989 SC 66) Province of Sindh v. Shahzad Hussain Talpur (2022 SCMR 439) Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan (PLD 1993 SC 473) Justice Qazi Faez Isa v. President of Pakistan (2022 SCP 140) Tahir Naqash v. State (PLD 2022 SC 385)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending