Summary: [1. The wisdom of setting up Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution is to deal and decide the matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of Civil Servants. Under Section 5 (2) of the Services Tribunal Act 1973, the Tribunal for the purposes of deciding any appeal be deemed to be a Civil Court and have the same powers as are vested in such court and even under Rule 18 of the Services Tribunals (procedure) Rules 1974, the Tribunal may record evidence of a witness.2. As a forum of exclusive jurisdiction, the Constitutional mandate as well as the provisions of Services Tribunal Act 1973, articulates and commands to do the complete and substantial justice between the parties with a rational denouement of the case.3. The foremost aspiration of conducting departmental inquiry is to find out whether a prima facie case of misconduct is made out against the delinquent officer for proceeding further. The guilt or innocence can only be thrashed out from the outcome of inquiry and at the same time it is also required to be seen by the learned Service Tribunal as to whether due process of law or right to fair trial was followed or ignored which is a fundamental right as envisaged under Article 10-A of the Constitution.4. A distinction also needs to be drawn between a regular inquiry or preliminary/fact finding inquiry. A regular inquiry is triggered after issuing show cause notice with statement of allegations and if the reply is not found suitable then inquiry officer is appointed and regular inquiry is commenced, whereas a discrete or fact finding inquiry is conducted at initial stage but internally to find out whether in the facts and circumstances reported, a proper case of misconduct is made out to initiate disciplinary proceedings.5. The standard of proof looked-for in a departmental inquiry deviates from the standard of proof required in a criminal trial. In the departmental inquiry, the standard of proof is that of ?balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence? but not a ?proof beyond reasonable doubt?, which strict proof is required in criminal trial.6. The authority conducting the departmental inquiry should be impartial and delinquent civil servant should be provided fair opportunity of being heard and if the order based on inquiry report is challenged, then it is the legal duty of the Service Tribunal to give some reasons and there should be some discussion of evidence on record which is necessary to deliberate the merits of the case in order to reach just conclusion before confirming, reducing or setting aside the penalty]

Summary: Act not valid---Income Support Levy Act-----the Act imposed a levy on net moveable wealth exceeding one million rupees at a rate of 0.5%. Failure to pay the levy or paying less than the required amount led to a default surcharge.The Act faced constitutional challenges, including debates on whether it constituted taxation and if it followed proper legislative procedures. The Commissioner Inland Revenue argued that the Income Support Levy qualified as taxation, while the High Court ruled that the act was not properly introduced as a Money Bill and did not constitute taxation.The Act was repealed in 2014 through the Finance Act, 2014. Despite its repeal, efforts were made to recover Income Support Levy amounts. The case further highlighted concerns about the Act's constitutionality and its compliance with legislative procedures.The court ultimately concluded that the Act did not meet the criteria of a Money Bill, and its imposition was not valid under proper legislative procedures. The Act's objectives related to poverty alleviation and setting up an income support fund were deemed unattainable due to the absence of a legislative mechanism to secure collected amounts. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the Constitution's procedures and the significance of involving elected representatives in lawmaking processes. The case reaffirmed the necessity of upholding constitutional principles to maintain democracy and national unity.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Bail Before Arrest in FIR No. 653/2021, dated 24-09-2021 U/s 489-F P.S Golra Sharif, Islamabad.

Summary: U/A 184(3)/Others - Order---

Summary: The case involved a dispute regarding the appointment of candidates for the position of Sub-Inspector (BPS-11) in the Punjab Cooperatives Department, Khushab.After a recruitment process, a seniority list of eligible candidates was prepared by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The respondent in the case was initially placed at Serial No. 8 on this list. Several candidates higher on the list were unable or refused to take the position, leaving vacancies. The respondent, who was next in line, sought appointment to one of these vacancies.The issue revolved around whether the department had the authority to request a substitute candidate from the waiting list when the initial candidates didn't accept the position. The Court determined that the department's failure to request a substitute candidate in a timely manner was not a valid reason to deny the respondent's appointment. The Court emphasized the principle of equality before the law and the fact that vacancies should be filled to avoid keeping positions vacant.Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition from the Government of Punjab, stating that the respondent's appointment was valid and should have been granted considering the available vacancies and the candidate's position on the waiting list. The Lahore High Court's judgment in favor of the respondent was upheld.

Summary: Facts:The Government of Punjab challenged the Lahore High Court's order, which favored Asad Abbas, the respondent, by setting aside the departmental decision that rejected his application for appointment as Sub-Inspector (BPS-11) in the Punjab Cooperatives Department, Khushab. The respondent was 8th on the merit list from a 2017 recruitment process, with vacancies arising due to the refusal or resignation of candidates above him.----Issue:Whether the refusal to appoint the respondent from the waiting list, despite available vacancies and the precedence of appointing other candidates from the same list, was justified.----Decision:The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal, thereby upholding the High Court's decision in favor of the respondent.---Reasoning:The Court noted that vacancies remained unfilled despite available candidates on the waiting list, and the respondent, being next in line after others had refused or resigned, was unjustly denied appointment. The department's inaction to request the respondent's name as a substitute within the stipulated time was deemed a departmental fault, not attributable to the respondent. The Court emphasized the principle of equality before the law and equal protection, as enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, highlighting that the respondent should not suffer due to the department's errors. It was also noted that the department had not taken steps to rectify the situation even after the High Court's order, indicating a lack of due diligence.----Rule:The decision reinforced the principle that candidates on a waiting list have a legitimate expectation for appointment in case of vacancies, especially when others above them on the list have declined positions or resigned. It also stressed the importance of administrative bodies acting diligently and fairly in recruitment processes, in accordance with constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending