Summary: The respondent, who was employed as an Officer Grade-II with the National Bank of Pakistan, absented himself from duty starting from October 31, 2014. The bank issued several notices to the respondent, requesting him to report for duty and justify his absence. However, the respondent did not join duty and instead claimed that he could not work due to a tribal feud and threats to his life. He requested an additional year of leave without pay. The court noted that the respondent did not provide any evidence or material to support his claim of a tribal feud or the threats to his life. The court concluded that since the respondent's absence from duty was admitted and no disputed facts were involved, there was no need for a regular inquiry. The court referred to a previous judgment and held that when the fact of absence from duty is admitted, a regular inquiry is unnecessary. Regarding the High Court's observation that the respondent's absence period was condoned and his joining report was accepted with a stern warning, the Supreme Court found no document on record to support this claim. Instead, it was evident from the record that the respondent's service was terminated through a memorandum dated April 7, 2016, and the period of absence was treated as Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) without pay. The court clarified that treating the absence period as EOL without pay is not a punishment but a treatment given by the employer. The court referred to previous judgments on similar cases to support this interpretation. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's assumption that the termination order was passed under the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1980, was incorrect. The court found that the memorandum did not mention any such rule and criticized the High Court for relying on the respondent's counsel's submission without verifying its accuracy. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's judgment was erroneous and unjustified. The court set aside the impugned judgment and allowed the appeal.

Summary: Background:The respondent, Zahoor Ahmed, was employed as Officer Grade-II with the National Bank of Pakistan (the Bank) at the Satellite Town Branch, Quetta. He was absent from duty starting on October 31, 2014. The Bank issued multiple notices asking him to justify his absence and return to duty. Despite acknowledging the notices and citing threats to his life due to a tribal feud, Ahmed did not return to duty except for one day on February 2, 2016. Consequently, his employment was terminated on April 7, 2016, for prolonged unauthorized absence.----Issues:Whether the termination of Zahoor Ahmed's employment was justified without conducting a regular disciplinary inquiry.Whether the High Court's assumption that the termination order was issued under the National Bank of Pakistan Rules, 1980, was correct.----Holding/Reasoning/OutcomeHolding: The Supreme Court held that the termination of Zahoor Ahmed's employment was justified without a regular disciplinary inquiry because his absence from duty was admitted.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that conducting a regular inquiry was unnecessary when the fact of absence was undisputed. The High Court had erroneously assumed that the termination was under the National Bank of Pakistan Rules, 1980, without any supporting documentation.Outcome: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal, thereby upholding the termination of Zahoor Ahmed's employment.----Citations/Precedents:Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Division, Islamabad vs. Mamoon Ahmed Malik (2020 SCMR 1154)Chairman vs. Muhammad Shafique (2020 SCMR 425)Kafyat Ullah Khan vs. Inspector General of Police, Islamabad and another (Civil Appeal No.1661 of 2019)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: View that the petitioners havefailed to make out any case for indulgence under ourconstitutional jurisdiction; hence, all listed petitions are herebydismissed.

Summary: Facts: The Province of Punjab, through its Secretary of the Excise & Taxation Department, challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated February 19, 2019, which declared certain notifications related to the levy of export duty on goods manufactured by MBCL and consumed outside Punjab as ultra vires. The High Court found these notifications to violate the freedom of trade under Article 151 of the Constitution of Pakistan.----Issue(s):Whether Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is mandatory or directory.The consequences of non-compliance with Section 79 CPC.Whether exceptions exist to the general rule regarding the mandatory nature of Section 79 CPC.Holding: The Supreme Court held that Section 79 CPC is generally mandatory, but the misdescription of a party, in this case, does not render the suit unmaintainable. The Court can rectify such an error under its inherent powers.---Reasoning:The Court determined that the legislative intent behind Section 79 CPC is to ensure proper representation and defense of the government in legal proceedings. The usage of 'shall' in the provision usually indicates a mandatory nature, but other factors, including the purpose of the statute and the consequences of non-compliance, must also be considered.The Court found that the misdescription of the party as 'Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, through Secretary Excise & Taxation' instead of 'Province of Punjab through Secretary Excise & Taxation Department' was a mere technicality and not fatal to the case. The essential purpose of Section 79 CPC was still met as the government was effectively represented.The Court distinguished between misdescription and misjoinder of parties, noting that procedural defects that do not affect the essence of the case can be corrected, and should not obstruct the course of justice.Judgment: The petitions were converted into appeals and allowed. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Lahore High Court for decision on merits. The appellant was directed to file amended titles of the ICAs with proper description in conformity with Section 79 CPC and Article 174 of the Constitution.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending