Summary: Against reduction of penalty--The respondent, employed as a Chowkidar in the Federal Directorate of Education, Islamabad, was alleged to have physically assaulted a female co-worker, Mst. Parveen Akhtar, at a school premises. The incident was witnessed by various school staff members, and the victim filed complaints with the Federal Ombudsman and the police. The department conducted an internal inquiry, found the respondent guilty, and imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service.However, the Federal Service Tribunal partly allowed the respondent's appeal, converting the penalty of dismissal into withholding of increments for five years and reinstating him into service from the date of dismissal.The appellant argues that the penalty imposed was justified given the serious allegations of violence against the female worker. The respondent maintains that the incident did not happen as alleged and the punishment was harsh.The court finds sufficient evidence, including eyewitness accounts and a medico-legal report, to establish the respondent's guilt. It holds that the penalty of dismissal was appropriate for the gravity of the misconduct committed within the school premises. The court also criticizes the Tribunal's lack of lawful reasons for modifying the penalty. As a result, the appeal is allowed, and the department's punishment of dismissal is restored and affirmed.

Summary: Appointments of Special Assistant to the Prime Minster were challenged----Dismissed---No Merit.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302, 324 & 353---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt tocommit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of hisduty, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Prompt FIR---Mitigating circumstances--- Public servant, not in official uniform---Single fireshot---Scope---Accused was alleged to have murdered one of the levies officials when he was trying toarrest the accused on account of engagement in an altercation with another group---Complainant, in the promptly lodged FIR, had nominated the accused for making firing uponthe deceased---Empties had matched with the pistol which was recovered on the spot---HighCourt observed that the accused was responsible for the murder and had rightly beenconvicted, however, noticed that no evidence was available on record to prove that theincident of altercation was reported to the levies; that no member of the other group wasproduced; that the attack upon the deceased seemed to be without premeditation; that thedeceased was not wearing his official uniform and that the accused had not repeated thefireshot---Said circumstances fell within the ambit of mitigation therefore sentence of deathwas altered to imprisonment for life---Appeal was dismissed.Haroon Rasheed v. The State 2005 SCMR 1568; Sh. Muhammad Abid v. The State2011 SCMR 1148; Nasir Iqbal v. The State 2016 SCMR 2152; Fayyaz alias Fiazi v. TheState 2017 SCMR 204 and Rehmat Khan v. The State 2017 SCMR 2034 ref.Muhammad Riaz and another v. The State and another 2007 SCMR 1413 andMuhammad Sharif v. The State PLD 2009 SC 709 rel.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302, 324 & 353---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Qatl-i-amd,attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from dischargeof his duty, act of terrorism---Public servant not in official uniform---Accused was alleged tohave murdered one of the levies officials when he was trying to arrest the accused on account of engagement in an altercation with another group---Validity---Act of accused was notcommitted with design or purpose specified in clause (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of S.6, AntiTerrorism Act, 1997---Such act did not fall within the ambit of "terrorism" because only thedeceased was targeted who was not wearing official uniform---None of the other leviesofficials had received any injury and the deceased had received only one fireshot injury onhis person---Conviction of accused under S.7, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 recorded by TrialCourt was set aside and he was acquitted of the charge.Criminal Appeals Nos. 95 and 96 of 2019 rel.(c) Criminal trial------Each criminal case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances and seldom coincides withother on salient features.

Summary: Background:The case involves an appeal against a judgment by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated December 16, 2019. The Tribunal had partially allowed a Service Appeal filed by the respondent, converting his dismissal from service into a penalty of withholding increments for five years and reinstating him. The respondent, employed as a Chowkidar in the Federal Directorate of Education, was accused of physically assaulting a female colleague, Mst. Parveen Akhtar, on May 12, 2015. The internal inquiry found him guilty, leading to his dismissal on May 10, 2016, which was upheld until the Tribunal's decision.----Issues:Was the Federal Service Tribunal justified in modifying the penalty from dismissal to withholding of increments for five years?Did the respondent receive a fair internal inquiry, and was there sufficient evidence to substantiate the charges against him?----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in reducing the penalty. The Court found substantial evidence supporting the charges against the respondent, including eyewitness accounts and a Medico Legal Report confirming the assault. The internal inquiry was deemed fair and unbiased. The Court emphasized that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are distinct and that the respondent's acquittal in criminal court did not undermine the validity of the departmental inquiry. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision to reduce the penalty lacked sufficient legal reasoning and failed to appropriately address the gravity of the misconduct.Citations/Precedents:Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1974The principles of judicial review regarding departmental proceedings and the standard of proof required in such cases.----Citations/Precedents:Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1974: The Tribunal must provide legally sustainable reasons when exercising its jurisdiction under this section. Arbitrary and unstructured exercise of jurisdiction without adequate reasoning is unacceptable.Internal Inquiry Committee Composition: The Committee consisted of Ms. Farida Yasmeen, Director School (Female); Major Abdul Waheed Khan, Deputy Director (C&M Cell); and Mr. Muhammad Azhar Khan, Supervisor (Monitoring), who were found to have acted fairly and provided the respondent ample opportunity to defend himself.Medico Legal Report (MLR): This report corroborated the eyewitness accounts of the assault, substantiating the charges against the respondent.Previous Judicial Rulings: The Court reiterated that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically nullify findings in departmental proceedings, as they operate under different standards and scopes.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Cross FIR about same occurrence quashed.

Summary: Marginal witness of mutation deposed that be knew Mst. Hussan pari, who is his cousin, neither in his presence sale consideration was paid nor her statement was recorded, similarly in his presence vendor has not signed the mutation, in such an eventuality no sale was proved.

Summary: Appointment of Class-IV Employee through District Employment Exchange.