Summary: (a) Dismissal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000----S. 3---Departmental disciplinary proceedings---Compulsory retirement---Absenteeism and habitual late coming---Scope---Petitioner, a police official, was compulsorily retired from service for habitual tardiness and absence from duty without intimation---Attendance sheets and biometric data revealed repeated violations---Plea of petitioner that he arrived late due to arranging official events found to be self-incriminating, as no formal exemptions were sought---“Out Working” entries were clearly marked in attendance record when petitioner was legitimately out on duty---Biometric records further indicated falsification of presence---Held, that in presence of such overwhelming documentary evidence, no formal inquiry was required under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000---Service Tribunal rightly concluded that petitioner’s conduct warranted disciplinary action---No jurisdictional error or legal infirmity found to justify interference---Leave to appeal refused.Disposition: Petition dismissed; leave to appeal refused.Cited Legislation:• Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, S. 3

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Article 4 – Control of discretionary power – Termination during probation – Scope and legality: Petitioner, a BPS-21 Professor, was terminated through Notification dated 27.12.2018 with effect from 20.12.2018—Challenge was made to legality of termination on grounds of violation of due process, retrospective effect, lack of hearing, and mala fides—Petitioner argued that the Notification was issued by an incompetent authority and in violation of principles of good governance—Held, petitioner was appointed on probation for one year vide appointment letter dated 22.12.2017, which specifically provided that his services could be terminated without notice or assigning reasons during probation—Syndicate, being the competent authority under Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University Act, 2013, approved termination in its 12th meeting on 20.12.2018—Notification issued thereafter did not suffer from illegality—Principles of natural justice such as audi alteram partem do not apply to simpliciter termination of a probationer unless mala fides are established, which were absent in the present case. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Iqbal Khan Niazi v. Lahore High Court, 2003 PLC (CS) 282 M. Munir v. Government of Punjab, NLR 1998 Service 124 Muhammad Hussain Naqshabandi v. Government of Punjab, 2004 SCMR 44 Muhammad Nadeem Ahmed v. Azhra Feroz Bakhat, PLD 1968 SC 37 Shahzada Shahpur Tan v. Auditor General of Pakistan, PLD 1984 SC 430 (b) Service Law – Probation – Nature of employment – Termination – No vested right to continue: –––Probationary appointment is by nature temporary and conditional—Termination simpliciter during such period cannot be questioned unless shown to be mala fide—University acted within terms of appointment and under proper legal authority—Petitioner's plea that notification had retrospective effect was held meritless since decision was taken by the Syndicate on 20.12.2018 and notified shortly after. (c) University governance – SZABMU Act, 2013 – Role of Syndicate – Competence to terminate services: –––As per Section 25 of the SZABMU Act, the Syndicate has exclusive authority to make appointments and determine terms of service for posts in BPS-19 and above—Petitioner was in BPS-21; therefore, Syndicate was legally competent to terminate his services—Notification issued following Syndicate's decision held valid and intra vires. (d) Service Law – Non-issuance of NOC – Allegation of mala fides – Justification: –––Petitioner’s claim that denial of No Objection Certificate (NOC) for alternate employment was mala fide—Court held that ongoing disciplinary inquiry and petitioner's alleged misconduct including disappearance of personal file were sufficient justification for refusal of NOC.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 199 & 212---Civil service---Non-payment of salaries etc., grievance of---Invoking constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Claim of the petitioners was that they were appointed in 2012 by the Education Department Govt. of Sindh, after fulfilling the codal formalities, however, they were not paid their monthly salaries, which led them to challenge the matter before the Service Tribunal by filing service appeal---Service Tribunal issued directions to the Education Department to scrutinize the petitioner's cases and after completing the codal formalities to release their salaries---Subsequently, the petitioners' cases were placed before the Scrutiny Committee and the Secretary, School Education Department , on the basis of the findings of the Scrutiny Committee, passed order issuing a list of eligible appointees for joining the service---Petitioners were not declared eligible during the scrutiny process---Admittedly, the petitioners were civil servants and matter related to terms and conditions of service i.e. the release of salaries, seniority and promotion---However, instead of challenging the findings of the Scrutiny Committee through a departmental appeal or a service appeal, they filed the instant petition before this/High Court for seeking relief for matters pertaining to the year 2012---Relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Petitioners had, on their own accord, availed the remedy by filing a service appeal before the Service Tribunal for the same relief---High Court in view of Art.212 of the Constitution lacks jurisdiction to entertain such matters, as the dispute essentially involves questions of law and fact which have already been decided---Constitutional petition, being merit-less, was dismissed. Salahuddin Chandio for Petitioners. Ali Safdar Depar, A.A.G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th March, 2025.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Sindh Empowerment of 'Persons with Disabilities' Act (XLVIII of 2018)--- ----Ss. 3, 11 & 25---Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973), S. 5---Disabled/differently-abled, persons---Appointments---Reserved quota---Respondents were disabled/differently-abled persons who approached High Court and sought directions against Government of Sindh for their appointment according to 5% quota, reserved under section 5 of Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973---Validity---Sindh Empowerment of 'Persons with Disabilities' Act, 2018 Act is a beneficial legislation enacted for empowerment of persons with disabilities, focused on a particular subject---As such Sindh Empowerment of 'Persons with Disabilities' Act, 2018 has to be enforced and implemented in letter and spirit across the board without any bias and discrimination---There was no logical justification to cause any interference in judgment passed by High Court merely on the foothold of alleged or purported objectionable portion highlighted by authorities, which was nothing but an amplification in the broader context---High Court had directed that all such persons who had already applied for jobs against vacant situations should have their applications considered at the outset rather than shelved or deferred under the garb or guise of fresh applications submitted for the same purposes by new entrants---High Court also cautioned Deputy Commissioners that any appointment made without inclusion of petitioners, who were differently-abled persons, would not be accepted and would be subject to legal scrutiny and action---Such observations of High Court were logical and did not prejudice interest of the petitioners / authorities in any event but rather served as a guideline to ensure finality and conclusiveness in recruitment process of disabled or differently-abled persons in accordance with the law---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Chairman, NADRA and others v. Abdul Majeed and another 2025 SCP 30 ref. (b) Legislation--- ----Enforcement of law--- Object, purpose and scope---Judicial review---Scope---Mere legislation is not sufficient, nor does it serve any purpose unless it is specifically enforced and administered---Implementing and enforcing laws in right dimensions represents unfeigned strategy through which government authorities put laws into action for effective and meaningful compliance under their beneficiaries---Effectual and proficient implementation of law is not only essential for maintaining order but it also guarantees justice, evenhandedness and equality in society with impartiality---Tool of judicial review is also a significant modus operandi that authorizes Courts to dwell on legislative competence, the Constitutionality of law and executive actions, to analyze whether the law aligns with Constitutional mandates and whether its implementation is fair and just, without any arbitrariness or discrimination---This is necessary for safeguarding and upholding rights of people as a key element in strengthening rule of law. Sibtain Mehmood, Additional Advocate General Sindh, Dr. Rana Khan, Advocate-on-Record along with Bhuro Mal, Additional Director (Law) (SGA&CD) for Petitioners. Zaheeruddin Mujahid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ms. Abida Parveen Channar, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.P.L.As. Nos. 220-K of 2025, 271-K of 2025 and 307-K of 2025). Farman Ali Tanwari, focal person for Court cases for Department of Employment of Persons with disabilities. Date of hearing: 20th March, 2025.

Summary: Deceased Quota ------ ''A married daughter remains equally a child of her deceased parent, and to deny her this entitlement on the basis of marriage is to deny her constitutional identity as an equal citizen. (2). Financial independence is not a privilege but a necessary precondition for the full realization of citizenship, autonomy, and personhood. (3) Executive clarification cannot override statutory rules.'' ---- (a) Constitution of Pakistan----Arts. 14, 25, 27 & 184(3)---Married daughter---Compassionate appointment---Equality---Non-discrimination---Right to dignity---Marital status---Legal personhood---Constitutional guarantees---Petitioner, appointed as Primary School Teacher under deceased son/daughter quota per Rule 10(4) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1989, was removed from service through an executive clarification that excluded married daughters from entitlement---Held, such exclusion amounts to gender-based discrimination, violating Arts. 14, 25, and 27 of the Constitution---Married daughters remain children of their deceased parent and cannot be denied compassionate employment merely due to marital status---Executive clarification issued by the Establishment Department amounted to impermissible curtailment of a statutory rule through administrative fiat---Doctrine of separation of powers violated by executive interference in legislative domain---Clarification struck down for being ultra vires, unconstitutional, discriminatory, and without lawful authority---Held further, Constitution guarantees rights to individuals regardless of gender or marital status; treating married daughters as dependent liabilities contravenes both constitutional principles and Islamic jurisprudence, which upholds a woman’s financial autonomy irrespective of marital status.(b) Service Law----Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973, S. 26---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1989, R.10(4)---Interpretation of rules---Scope---Compassionate appointment---Married daughter---Executive clarification---Legal competence---Held, Rule 10(4) of the 1989 Rules does not exclude married daughters from compassionate appointment---Executive clarification purporting to limit rule’s applicability to unmarried daughters or separated women lacked legal authority under S.26 of the Act---Only the Governor is competent to frame or amend rules---Executive instruction cannot override or amend a statutory rule---Clarification introducing gender-based classification between married sons and daughters declared unconstitutional and violative of equal protection under the law.(c) Islamic Law----Financial autonomy of women---Marital status---Islamic jurisprudence---Scope---Held, Islamic law recognizes the right of a woman to retain full ownership and control over her earnings and property irrespective of marriage---Presumption of economic dependency of married women is neither legally tenable nor religiously grounded.(d) Feminist Legal Theory----Gender equality---Legal identity---Patriarchal assumptions---Held, exclusion of married daughters reflects regressive, patriarchal notions that equate womanhood with dependency on male relatives---Legal personhood and entitlement to economic rights are individual and not contingent on marriage---State policies denying women equal access to employment on the basis of marital status reinforce structural inequality---References made to feminist theorists such as Martha Fineman, bell hooks, Simone de Beauvoir, and jurisprudence rejecting doctrine of coverture and affirming women’s rights as autonomous individuals.(e) International Law----CEDAW---Articles 1, 2 & 11---Gender discrimination---Marital status---Pakistan’s international obligations---Held, exclusion of married daughters from compassionate employment violates Pakistan’s obligations under CEDAW, ICCPR, and ICESCR---Administrative practices rooted in customary gender roles and stereotypes are incompatible with international standards requiring substantive equality.(f) Judicial Language----Gender-neutral judicial reasoning---Structural bias---Held, phrase “a married daughter becomes a liability of her husband” used in the impugned Service Tribunal judgment was patriarchal, factually and legally erroneous, and constitutionally incompatible---Judicial and administrative authorities must adopt gender-sensitive and gender-neutral language as part of their constitutional duty to uphold dignity and equality---Judgments must not encode bias through language.(g) Practice & Procedure----Prospective application of precedent---Retrospective effect---Held, SC judgment in GPO Islamabad v. Muhammad Jalal (PLD 2024 SC 1276), which struck down Rule 10(4), applies prospectively and does not affect appointments already made under the Rule.Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed. Impugned judgment and executive clarification set aside. Petitioner’s appointment restored with all back-benefits.Cited Cases:• Muhammad Nadeem Arif v. IG Police, Punjab 2011 SCMR 408• Federal Public Service Commission v. Altaf Hussain 2015 SCMR 581• Province of Punjab v. Kanwal Rashid 2021 SCMR 730• Khawaja Ahmad Hassan v. Government of Punjab 2005 SCMR 186• Federation of Pakistan v. Shuja Sharif 2023 SCMR 129• Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2022 SC 574• General Post Office, Islamabad v. Muhammad Jalal PLD 2024 SC 1276• Zarai Taraqiati Bank v. Sarfraz Khan Jadoon 2021 SCMR 1305• Pakistan Medical & Dental Council v. Muhammad Fahad Malik 2018 SCMR 1956Cited International Instruments:• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: –––Art. 199––– Writ jurisdiction–––Scope and discretionary nature–––Extraordinary relief–––Petitioner, a BPS-19 officer of the Pakistan Administrative Service, was appointed as Director General Hajj, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, for a fixed term of three years–––Impugned notification was issued prematurely curtailing his tenure and directing his repatriation to the Establishment Division–––Petitioner challenged the said notification through constitutional petition–––Petitioner, however, joined his new post at the Establishment Division on 11.02.2025, prior to obtaining interim relief from the Court on 12.02.2025, but failed to disclose this material fact–––Held, writ jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution is equitable and discretionary–––Petitioner had failed to approach the Court with clean hands by concealing material facts and obtaining interim relief through suppression–––Such conduct disentitles the petitioner to any relief under writ jurisdiction–––Petition was dismissed, as no live controversy survived after petitioner’s acquiescence to the impugned notification. Cited Cases: • PLD 2024 SC 54 • 2006 PLC (CS) 325 • 2024 PLC (CS) 323 • 2020 CLC 1945 (b) Service Law: –––Tenure posting on foreign assignment–––Premature repatriation–––Scope of ESTACODE provisions–––Petitioner’s appointment was based on a fixed tenure of three years, as per ESTACODE (Edition-2021), Section 3.2, Clause (xi), which mandated strict adherence to tenure without extension–––Petitioner relied on an earlier notification of selection (16.03.2023) rather than actual posting order (07.04.2023)–––Interim relief was obtained by relying on an incorrect document–––Held, reliance on improperly cited notifications to mislead the Court is a serious breach of legal obligation and undermines judicial integrity–––Court observed that such conduct must be discouraged to maintain sanctity of judicial process. (c) Administration of Justice: –––Interim relief–––Duty of full disclosure–––Petitioner's failure to inform Court of material developments–––Concept of uberrima fides (utmost good faith)–––Court emphasized that parties seeking interim relief are under strict duty to disclose all material facts–––Failure to do so, whether intentional or inadvertent, may result in discharge of relief obtained–––Reliance placed on Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 12A (2023), para. 1657–––Court held that concealment of petitioner’s joining report and pursuit of interim relief constituted serious lapse in candor–––Although no penal action was taken, Court reiterated importance of transparency and good faith in invoking constitutional jurisdiction.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)— Arts. 4, 199 & 212 — Constitutional jurisdiction — Maintainability — Nature of challenge — Disciplinary proceedings against public prosecutors — Scope of writ jurisdiction — Bar of Article 212 — Applicability.Held, where disciplinary action is challenged not on the basis of terms and conditions of service but for being initiated in violation of statutory mandate (Section 10(2) of Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service Act, 2006), constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is maintainable — Bar under Article 212 is not attracted where a pure question of law regarding lawful authority of respondents is raised.(b) Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006— Ss. 5, 6, 9, 10(1), 10(2), 13, 17 & 18 — Prosecutorial structure and independence — Hierarchical command — Disciplinary authority — Prosecutor General as head of service — Role of Appeal Committees — Scope of recommendations — Validity of proceedings initiated without reference by Prosecutor General.Held, the Prosecutor General is the administrative and functional head of the Prosecution Service with exclusive statutory mandate to issue directions and oversee prosecutorial conduct — All prosecutors are bound to follow Code of Conduct and guidelines issued by the Prosecutor General — No disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against a prosecutor without a reference from the Prosecutor General or District Public Prosecutor under Section 10(2) of the Act — Initiation of proceedings by Secretary, Public Prosecution Department, in absence of such reference, held illegal and ultra vires.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (1898)— Ss. 417, 492–495 — Prosecution — Functions and powers of Public Prosecutors — Role in trial and appeals — Distinction between opinion and final authority to appeal — Legal protection to prosecutorial discretion.Held, opinion formed by prosecutors or appeal committees regarding fitness of case for appeal is advisory and not binding on the Government — Absence of mala fide precludes punitive consequences — Prosecutors’ assessments, when made in accordance with issued guidelines, enjoy statutory protection under Section 18(1) of the 2006 Act.(d) Interpretation of Statutes— Delegation of powers — Statutory compliance — Mandatory procedural requirement — Non-compliance — Effect.Held, Section 10(2) of the 2006 Act vests exclusive authority in Prosecutor General or District Public Prosecutor to initiate reference for disciplinary proceedings — Any action taken in contravention is void and without legal effect — Procedural safeguards prescribed in statute cannot be bypassed or substituted.(e) Administrative Law— Ultra vires — Absence of lawful authority — Quashment of disciplinary proceedings.Held, orders passed by Secretary Public Prosecution and inquiry report prepared without statutory authority or proper reference held to be ultra vires, illegal, and void ab initio — Entire proceedings quashed.Disposition:Writ petition allowed.Impugned disciplinary proceedings declared to have been initiated without lawful authority.Orders dated 16.07.2021, 07.10.2021, and 05.04.2022 set aside and quashed.

Summary: Summary pending