Summary: Background: The respondents, who were Range Forest Officers in the Forest and Wildlife Department, Government of Sindh, filed a constitutional petition challenging the recruitment process conducted by the Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC) for the post of Assistant Conservator Forests (BPS-17). Originally, two positions were advertised for urban candidates, but the SPSC subsequently altered the quota, adding one rural position and increasing the posts to seven without re-advertising. Additionally, age relaxation was granted up to 15 years, benefiting several candidates. The respondents alleged favoritism, procedural lapses, and nepotism in the recruitment process. -----Issues: 1- Was the SPSC's alteration of the quota and increase in posts without re-advertising lawful? -----2- Was the extension of the application deadline and 15-year age relaxation justified and in accordance with the law? -----3- Did the recruitment process lack transparency, and was it marred by nepotism and favoritism? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, declaring the recruitment process null and void due to procedural irregularities and lack of transparency. The Court held that: Alterations to the quota, increase in the number of posts, and the extended application deadline required re-advertisement under the 2006 SPSC regulations. The failure to re-advertise violated the principles of fairness and transparency. The extensive age relaxation granted was deemed excessive, arbitrary, and financially burdensome on the government. The Court emphasized that discretionary powers must align with reasonableness and proportionality. The recruitment process was tainted by favoritism and a lack of transparency, with undue influence from high-ranking officials, undermining the principle of merit-based selection. The petitions were dismissed, and the Court ordered that the positions be re-advertised, allowing all eligible candidates to participate. Additionally, the notification granting age relaxation was struck down. -----Citations/Precedents: Munir Hussain vs. Province of Sindh (2022 SCMR 650) Musa Wazir vs. NWFP Public Service Commission (1993 SCMR 1124) Chief Secretary Punjab vs. Abdul Raoof Dasti (2006 SCMR 1876) Government of KPK vs. Bacha Alam Khan (2022 SCMR 718) Suo Motu Action Regarding Eligibility of Chairman and Members of Sindh Public Service Commission (2017 SCMR 637) Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Chairman Fourth Wage Board (1993 SCMR 1533) Federation of Pakistan vs. Shuja Sharif (2023 SCMR 129) Syed Azam Shah vs. Federation of Pakistan (2022 SCMR 201) Tariq Aziz-ud-Din and others (2011 PLC (C.S.) 1130) Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress (AIR 1991 SC 101) Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1997 (7) SCC 622)

Summary: Background: The petitioners in this case challenged the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests (BPS-17) in Sindh. Initially, the Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC) advertised two positions for urban candidates in 2020. However, changes were subsequently made, reallocating one of these positions to the rural quota, extending the application deadline, increasing the number of posts from 2 to 7, and providing an age relaxation of up to 15 years. The respondents, who had failed the interview, filed a constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court, alleging irregularities and favoritism in the recruitment process. The High Court found procedural violations and ordered the re-advertisement of posts. The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's decision. -----Issues: 1- Whether the procedural amendments, including reallocation of quotas and an increase in the number of vacancies, were lawful. -----2- Whether the 15-year age relaxation granted by the Sindh government was reasonable and consistent with the governing rules. -----3- Whether the SPSC's recruitment process was transparent and free from favoritism, nepotism, or other irregularities. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming that: --Procedural Amendments: The SPSC’s procedural amendments—including reallocation of quotas and the increase in the number of vacancies—were made without re-advertisement, which violated SPSC's Recruitment Regulations (2006). These regulations require that significant changes, like the addition of vacancies, must be re-advertised to ensure transparency and fair competition. --Age Relaxation: The Court found the 15-year age relaxation excessive and unjustifiable. The Sindh government had extended the upper age limit from 30 to 45 years, allowing candidates close to retirement age to enter public service, which could place undue financial strain on the government due to pension obligations. This relaxation was found inconsistent with Rule 12(2) of the Sindh Civil Servant (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1974 (APT Rules), which originally permitted a maximum relaxation of up to 10 years. --Transparency and Merit in the Recruitment Process: The Court emphasized that recruitment must prioritize merit and remain free from favoritism. It highlighted irregularities, including a lack of public display of scores and the possibility of undue influence, citing the connection between selected candidates and high-ranking officials. Consequently, the Court invalidated the recruitment process and ordered the SPSC to re-advertise the positions to ensure a fair competitive selection. The Court dismissed the civil petitions and refused leave to appeal, upholding the High Court’s directive for a fresh competitive process. -----Citations/Precedents: Suo Motu Action Regarding Eligibility of Chairman and Members of SPSC (2017 SCMR 637) Munir Hussain v. Province of Sindh (2022 SCMR 650) Chief Secretary Punjab v. Abdul Raoof Dasti (2006 SCMR 1876) Government of KPK v. Bacha Alam Khan (2022 SCMR 718) Tariq Aziz-ud-Din and others (2011 PLC (C.S.) 1130) Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress (AIR 1991 SC 101) Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1997 SCC 622) Federation of Pakistan v. Shuja Sharif (2023 SCMR 129) Syed Azam Shah v. Federation of Pakistan (2022 SCMR 201)

Summary: Civil Petition No. 2330-L of 2019, decided on 23rd October, 2024. (Against the order dated 18.06.2019 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 3212 of 2016). (a) Civil service--- ----Deterrent punishment---Object, purpose and scope---Purpose of deterrent punishment is not only to balance gravity of wrong done but also to maintain discipline and decorum in an establishment---Such punishment at times serves as a preventive measure or example for others in the interest of societal reformation. Postmaster General Balochistan v. Amanat Ali and others 2024 SCMR 1484 = 2024 PLC (C.S) 1051; Postmaster General Sindh Province, Karachi v. Syed Farhan 2022 SCMR 1154; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Nargis Jamal 2022 SCMR 2114 and Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services, D.G. Khan v. Nadeem Raza 2023 SCMR 803 rel. (b) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)--- ----S. 4---Service appeal---Absence without leave---Appellate jurisdiction, exercise of---Pre-conditions---Respondent/civil servant remained absent from duty without leave and was proceed against departmentally---Authorities imposed major penalty of reduction to lower post---Service Tribunal allowed appeal filed by respondent/civil servant and set aside the penalty---Validity---While exercising appellate jurisdiction under the provisions of Service Tribunals Acts the first and foremost duty is to thoroughly examine all facts of the case and diligently address all factual and legal pleas raised by parties, and then decide whether proceedings for misconduct, initiated through show cause notice and statement of allegations, have duly been proved or not---In case penalty is imposed as a result of a regular inquiry, it is also necessary to examine inquiry proceedings and inquiry report, along with recommendations forwarded by inquiry officer/inquiry committee to competent authority for further action in accordance with law---In service appeals challenging minor or major penalties imposed upon civil servants, core issue is to evaluate gravity of charges and proof of guilt of delinquent during inquiry---Without adverting to inquiry proceedings and report, it would not be possible for Service Tribunal to reach a just and proper conclusion---Merely treating period of absence without pay in cases where punishments are imposed by competent authority other than dismissal/removal from service neither exonerate respondent from charge of misconduct nor act of misconduct is vanished on such count alone---In the present case such benefit was accorded by taking a lenient view to avoid breakup in the length of service only which did not amount to exoneration from period of absence---Supreme Court set aside order passed by Service Tribunal and service appeal filed by respondent / civil servant was dismissed---Appeal was allowed. Lahore Development Authority v. Muhammad Nadeem Kachloo 2006 SCMR 434 distinguished. Baleegh-uz-Zaman Ch., Addl.AG, Punjab for Petitioners. Muhammad Anwar Bhanr, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent (through video link Lahore). Date of hearing: 23rd October, 2024.

Summary: (a) Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline, and Accountability Act, 2006: ---- Disciplinary proceedings—Willful absence from duty—Ex-Pakistan leave—Bogus medical certificates Respondent, a Deputy District Attorney (BS-18), was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline, and Accountability Act, 2006, for willful absence from duty from 04.06.2013 to 23.06.2013, traveling to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia without ex-Pakistan leave, and submitting fabricated medical certificates to cover up his absence. A departmental inquiry proved the charges, and the competent authority imposed a major penalty of reduction to a lower post (BS-17) for four years. The Punjab Service Tribunal allowed the respondent’s appeal, treating his absence as extraordinary leave without pay and setting aside the penalty, citing regularization of the absence as rendering the punishment void. Supreme Court, however, held that regularization of absence without pay does not exonerate an employee from charges of misconduct or annul the punishment imposed under due process. The Tribunal’s decision to set aside the penalty without addressing the merits of the case was found to be incongruous and contrary to the law. ----Cited Cases: Lahore Development Authority v. Muhammad Nadeem Kachloo 2006 SCMR 434 Postmaster General Balochistan v. Amanat Ali 2024 SCMR 1484 Postmaster General Sindh Province, Karachi v. Syed Farhan 2022 SCMR 1154 Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Nargis Jamal 2022 SCMR 2114 Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services, D.G. Khan v. Nadeem Raza 2023 SCMR 803 (b) Service Tribunal Acts (Federal and Provincial): ---- Appellate jurisdiction—Duties and responsibilities—Proportionality of punishment Service Tribunals are empowered to confirm, set aside, vary, or modify orders appealed against, with the authority to evaluate the proportionality and quantum of punishments. However, the Tribunal must address the merits of the case, including inquiry proceedings, evidence, and allegations, before arriving at a decision. In the present case, the Tribunal erred by failing to examine the merits and evidence, instead relying solely on the fact that the absence was treated as extraordinary leave without pay. Supreme Court underscored the obligation of Tribunals to ensure the punishment imposed aligns with the gravity of misconduct, considering principles of discipline and deterrence. (c) Misconduct—Discipline and decorum in civil service: ---- Willful absence and fabricated medical certificates—Legal implications Allowing willful absence or the submission of fabricated medical certificates without adequate punishment undermines discipline and decorum within the civil service. The Supreme Court emphasized that treating such absence as extraordinary leave without pay does not nullify the misconduct or the penalties imposed. The competent authority’s decision to impose a major penalty after due process was upheld, as it was consistent with maintaining discipline and preventing misuse of leave provisions. ----Disposition: The Supreme Court converted the civil petition into an appeal, allowed it, and set aside the Tribunal’s order. The respondent’s service appeal was dismissed.

Summary: The respondent filed a writ petition in the Peshawar High Court seeking directions for his appointment under the policy for children of civil servants who retire on medical grounds. The respondent relied on the Establishment Division’s Office Memorandum (OM) dated 13 April 2005, which allowed the appointment of a child of a civil servant who retires on medical grounds. However, the respondent's father had retired in 1996, prior to the issuance of the 2005 OM. The High Court issued directions to appoint the respondent based on the OM of 2005, which the petitioners challenged in the Supreme Court. ---- Issues: ---- 1) Whether the 2005 OM could be applied retrospectively to appoint the respondent, given that his father had retired in 1996. ---- 2) Whether the policy of appointing children of civil servants who die in service or retire on medical grounds, without open advertisement, conforms with Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution. ---- 3) Whether the Prime Minister has the authority to relax rules or issue policies under the Civil Servants Act. ---- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court held that the appointment policy providing special dispensation to children or widows of civil servants without open advertisement was discriminatory and in violation of Articles 3, 4, 5(2), 18, 25(1), and 27 of the Constitution. The Court ruled that public sector jobs should not be made hereditary or reserved for specific categories, as this undermines transparency and merit-based employment. The Court declared the relevant policies, rules, and memoranda as discriminatory, thereby directing their withdrawal. The Court clarified that existing appointments made under such policies would remain unaffected. It also specified that the judgment would not impact compensation packages or policies for legal heirs of martyred law enforcement personnel or civil servants who die due to terrorist activities. ---- Citations/Precedents: Articles 3, 4, 5(2), 18, 25(1), and 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan Civil Petition No. 288-P of 2015 (Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Agriculture v. Tahir Mushtaq and others) PWD Employees Union Balochistan v. Secretary Communication and Works (2015 PLC (C.S.) 1182) Dr. Imran Khattak v. Ms. Sofia Waqar Khattak (2014 SCMR 122)

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 17.12.2021 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (Karachi Bench) in Appeal No. 151(K)CS of 2020). (a) Civil service--- ----Concurrent disciplinary and criminal proceedings---Permissibility---Prosecution in criminal cases and departmental inquiries on the same allegations can proceed concurrently at both venues without having any overriding or overlapping effect---It is the prerogative of the employer to conduct the disciplinary proceedings despite acquittal in the criminal proceedings. Faraz Naveed v. District Police Officer Gujrat 2022 SCMR 1770 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 10-A---Civil service---Employee of Intelligence Bureau---Removal from service---Ex-parte departmental proceedings against employee when he was incarcerated in connection with a criminal case---Constitutionality---Employee re-instated in service by the Service Tribunal after his acquittal in the criminal case on basis of a compromise---Legality---It was not disputed that not only at the time of issuing show cause notice but even at the time of the alleged inquiry, the respondent was incarcerated---Obviously, then, it was not within his control or domain to face and defend the charges of misconduct or his involvement in a criminal case as a free man---It is a most valuable and instinctive human right of every Under Trial Prisoner (UTP) and a convicted person to defend or challenge his indictment and conviction in accordance with the law---Right of proper defence is a vested right and not providing ample opportunity of defence is also against Article 10-A of the Constitution---In order to answer and defend the allegations of misconduct, the personal appearance of the delinquent ought to be ensured and he should be afforded not only a right to adduce evidence and call witnesses to support his innocence, but he should also be given a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who deposed against him---In the present case during the ex-parte departmental proceedings the inquiry officer predominantly believed the police reports and challan of criminal cases and conducted the inquiry when the respondent was behind bars and his request for deferring the inquiry proceedings till the outcome of the criminal case was not accommodated and a major penalty of removal from service was recommended and imposed---Conducting ex parte proceeding, knowing that the employee (respondent) was unable to defend the charges of misconduct was nothing but a sheer violation of due process and the principles of natural justice, thus, rendering the entire exercise ineffectual and inconsequential---Petition was converted into an appeal and partly allowed, with the directions that the order of reinstatement with back benefits passed by the Service Tribunal, shall be subject to the outcome of de novo inquiry and in this regard the competent authority of the petitioner's department shall appoint an inquiry officer who should conduct an impartial regular inquiry, and during the inquiry proceedings, the respondent should be afforded ample opportunity of defence. Khaleeq Ahmed, Deputy Attorney General and Ghulam Hussain, Inspector, I.B. for Petitioners. Syed Shoa-un-Nabi, Advocate Supreme Court along with Respondent for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th October, 2024.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ----Arts. 10-A, 185(3) & Federal Service Tribunals Act (1973), S. 4—Disciplinary proceedings—Due process—Right of defence—Natural justice—Inquiry during incarceration—Scope of departmental and criminal proceedings. The respondent, an employee of the Intelligence Bureau (I.B.), was removed from service following an ex parte departmental inquiry conducted while he was incarcerated. The Supreme Court held that disciplinary and criminal proceedings can proceed independently and simultaneously. However, disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice and due process, ensuring a fair opportunity to defend. Conducting an inquiry during the respondent's incarceration, without affording him a reasonable opportunity to participate or defend himself, violated Article 10-A of the Constitution. The right to defend oneself in disciplinary proceedings includes personal appearance, presenting evidence, summoning witnesses, and cross-examining adverse witnesses. An inquiry conducted without adhering to these standards is rendered void and inconsequential. Cited Cases: Faraz Naveed v. District Police Officer Gujrat (2022 SCMR 1770) (b) Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules—Departmental Inquiry—Right of defence—Standard of proof—Distinction between criminal trial and departmental inquiry. While criminal and departmental proceedings serve distinct purposes and have different standards of proof, a departmental inquiry must still adhere to the principles of fairness, transparency, and natural justice. The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is based on the "balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt." However, the absence of the accused due to incarceration and the inability to respond to charges or cross-examine witnesses vitiate the proceedings and render them unfair. (c) Administration of Justice—Principles of Natural Justice—Ex parte inquiry during incarceration—Validity. An ex parte inquiry conducted against an incarcerated employee without ensuring their participation and the ability to present their defence constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. Such an inquiry cannot form the basis for imposing a major penalty like removal from service. (d) Right to Fair Trial—Scope of Article 10-A—Departmental Proceedings. Article 10-A of the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process, which extends to departmental proceedings. Even in cases involving disciplined forces, adherence to procedural fairness and ensuring ample opportunity for defence are mandatory. Disposition: Civil Petition converted into an appeal and partly allowed. The reinstatement order is made subject to a de novo inquiry. The competent authority is directed to appoint an impartial inquiry officer to conduct the inquiry within three months, ensuring full compliance with the principles of natural justice and due process.

Summary: Punjab Healthcare Commission (PHC) Act, 2010 – Delegation of Powers: -----Scope of Delegation and Authority under the PHC Act: The Punjab Healthcare Commission (PHC) can delegate certain administrative functions, such as hearing complaints and reports, to committees under section 4(2)(m) and section 4(3) of the PHC Act. However, quasi-judicial functions, particularly imposing fines, must be exercised exclusively by the Commission under sections 4(2)(g) and 28 of the PHC Act. Delegation of such powers to a Hearing Committee is ultra vires unless expressly authorized by the parent statute. (Regulations 7(3) and 7(4) partially struck down for violating this principle). Interpretation of Regulatory Provisions (Regulation 7 of the Anti-Quackery Regulations, 2016): 2. While Regulation 7 allows Hearing Committees to process cases and recommend actions, the final adjudication of fines must rest with the PHC. 3. The imposition of additional fines for continuing violations under Regulation 7(4) is declared ultra vires and struck down as exceeding the regulatory authority provided by the PHC Act. -----Quackery and Inspection – Legality of Enforcement Actions: ---Legality of Inspections and Sealing under the 2016 Regulations: 4. Regulation 3(2) of the 2016 Regulations empowers PHC officials and authorized officers to inspect and seal premises suspected of quackery. These powers are valid under section 4(2)(q) and section 22(1) of the PHC Act. 5. Sealing of premises, seizure of evidence, and subsequent inspections by PHC officials are lawful when aligned with the precautionary principle and the legislative intent to safeguard public health. Burden of Proof in Alleged Quackery Cases: 6. The presence of medical waste, syringes, and medicines at a clinic, alongside corroborative evidence such as video footage and community testimony, constitutes sufficient grounds to initiate proceedings under the PHC Act. -----Procedural Validity of PHC Actions: ---Hearing Committees and Quasi-Judicial Decisions: 7. A Hearing Committee’s role is limited to processing complaints and making recommendations. The final decision-making authority, especially in imposing penalties, must reside with the Commission itself. (In the present case, the Committee exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing fines directly.) ---Judicial Oversight of PHC Actions: 8. Courts have consistently upheld the PHC’s authority to combat quackery through inspections, sealing, and enforcement actions, provided such actions comply with statutory and regulatory frameworks. ---Case-Specific Findings: Violation of Delegation Principles: 9. The Hearing Committee’s imposition of a Rs.300,000 fine on the Petitioner, later reduced to Rs.150,000 by the Sessions Judge, Lodhran, was found to be without jurisdiction. The order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Commission for a fresh decision. -----Legality of Inspections and Sealing Actions: 10. The inspections and subsequent sealing of Tariq Medical Store and Tariq Clinic were lawful under the PHC Act and the 2016 Regulations. -----Citations and Precedents: Punjab Healthcare Commission v. Mushtaq Ahmad Ch. (PLD 2016 Lahore 237) Punjab Healthcare Commission v. Mushtaq Ahmed Chaudhary (PLD 2018 Lahore 762) Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority v. Pakistan Broadcasters Association (2023 SCMR 1043) Shaukat Mahmood v. Election Commission of Pakistan (PLD 2024 SC 653) Fun Infotainment (Pvt) Ltd. v. PEMRA (PLD 2024 SC 230) Province of Punjab v. Saleem Ijaz (2023 SCMR 774)

Summary: Effect of omission of Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. -----Background: A petitioner challenged a governmental order denying their right to be considered for an appointment under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The denial was based on the omission of Rule 17-A, effective from 24.07.2024. The petitioner contended that their claim to the appointment arose before the rule's omission and should not be affected by the recent change. -----Issues: 1- Whether the omission of Rule 17-A applies retrospectively or prospectively. -----2- Whether Rule 17-A provides a concession akin to a quota or establishes a vested right. -----3- What constitutes the triggering event for invoking Rule 17-A, and if a claim can be made if the triggering event occurred prior to the rule's omission. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Prospective Application of Rule Omission: The court held that the omission of Rule 17-A was intended to have a prospective effect only. No language in the 24.07.2024 Notification indicated a retrospective intent. Therefore, the omission does not affect rights arising from events occurring before its removal. --Nature of Rule 17-A: The court clarified that Rule 17-A was not part of a quota or representation system. Instead, it aimed to provide financial support to families of deceased or incapacitated civil servants by allowing an unemployed family member to seek appointment. The rule functions as a conditional benefit rather than a vested right. --Triggering Event and Right to Appointment Consideration: The court determined that the right to seek appointment under Rule 17-A is triggered by the death or incapacitation of a civil servant. If this event occurred before the rule's omission date, the family member retains the right to be considered for appointment, provided they meet all conditions specified in the rule. This approach aligns with the doctrine of "locus poenitentiae," preventing the denial of rights retrospectively. The court granted the petition and set aside the denial order. However, it did not guarantee an appointment, only confirming the prospective application of the rule's omission. The petitioner’s application will be considered on its specific facts and circumstances, subject to eligibility. -----Citations/Precedents: Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 Doctrine of Locus Poenitentiae Punjab General Clauses Act, Section 20

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan—Maintainability of writ petition—Statutory rules—Service under National Bank of Pakistan—Jurisdiction under Art. 199—Principle of vested rights ----Art. 199—Maintainability—National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1973—Subsequent enforcement of Rules, 2021—Effect—Petitioners were proceeded against under Rules, 1973, which were statutory in nature—Court held that rights and liabilities must be governed by the law in force at the time of initiation of disciplinary proceedings—Subsequent change in service rules could not retrospectively affect vested rights of petitioners—Objection to maintainability on basis of enforcement of non-statutory Rules, 2021, overruled—Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 199 held fully attracted. Muhammad Tariq Badar v. National Bank of Pakistan 2013 SCMR 314 Manzoor Ali v. United Bank Ltd. 2005 SCMR 1785 Haroon-ur-Rashid v. LDA 2016 SCMR 931 (b) Civil service—Departmental proceedings—Requirement to specify role in misconduct—Natural justice—Scam in foreign exchange department—No connection with petitioners established ----Where petitioners were not posted in the department in which the scam occurred, nor were they shown to be immediate or supervisory officers of the alleged mastermind, initiation of proceedings without specifying their direct or indirect involvement held unjustified—Mere general allegation of negligence without documentary evidence or clear attribution of failure of duty deemed insufficient—Court held that petitioners had been made scapegoats without legal justification. (c) Civil service—Performance record—Contrary to alleged negligence—Documentary proof of excellence ignored ----Petitioners had consistently received performance bonuses, letters of appreciation, and high annual appraisal remarks—Despite such evidence, competent and appellate authorities failed to consider these aspects—Court held that in absence of adverse supervisory comments, no inference of negligence could be drawn—Non-speaking orders of appellate authorities set aside for failing to apply judicial mind. (d) Departmental appeal—Supervisory officer's endorsement of innocence—Non-consideration by appellate authority—Effect ----Where appellate authority sought input from supervisory officer who explicitly recommended exoneration, failure to consider such recommendation held a serious lapse—Court termed dismissal of appeal without reasoned order as mechanical and in violation of principles of fairness and natural justice. (e) Civil service—Scam-based disciplinary action—Lack of nexus—Proceedings declared nullity ----Court reiterated that in absence of any material linking employee to commission of alleged misconduct, proceedings are void ab initio—Held, disciplinary measures must be based on actual culpability and not presumptive liability—Proceedings initiated merely on assumption or to fix responsibility in a generalised manner deprecated. (f) Disposition—Writ petitions allowed—Departmental orders set aside—Fresh proceedings permissible only if concrete material emerges —Held, impugned orders passed by competent and appellate authorities set aside—Petitioners exonerated—However, bank may initiate fresh proceedings if tangible evidence connecting petitioners to alleged scam becomes available—No order as to costs.