Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Power of Court under section 516A CrPC.

Summary: Background:Dr. Sohail Hassan Khan, Muhammad Javed Nayyer, and Dr. Shamas-ul-Hassan, former officials of the Poultry Research Institute at Rawalpindi, appealed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. They were implicated in irregularities related to procurement and distribution of poultry birds for earthquake relief efforts in 2005.---Issues:Validity of departmental proceedings against the petitioners following their exoneration from criminal charges.Appropriateness of penalties imposed on the petitioners.Alleged lack of proportionality in the penalties.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court upheld the departmental proceedings against the petitioners, emphasizing that exoneration from criminal charges does not shield them from disciplinary action.The Court found the petitioners guilty of financial mismanagement and abuse of their official positions.Penalties imposed on the petitioners were deemed appropriate given the seriousness of the offenses.The principle of proportionality was considered irrelevant in cases involving financial corruption and breach of public trust.The Court rejected arguments regarding the need for additional evidence or show cause for penalties imposed during the de novo inquiry.Restoration of original penalties did not constitute enhancement as it was part of an ongoing process.---Citations/Precedents:Punjab Employees Efficiency Discipline & Accountability Act, 2006Principle of proportionality in disciplinary matters

Summary: Background:In Civil Appeals No. 429, 430, and 442 of 2020 before the Supreme Court of Pakistan (Appellate Jurisdiction), the appellants challenged a judgment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal, Quetta, dated 12.04.2019, which granted financial benefits to certain doctors employed in the teaching cadre in the Province of Balochistan. The benefits in question included orderly allowance and special additional pension in lieu thereof.---Issues:Whether the appeals were filed within the statutory limitation period.Whether the Balochistan Service Tribunal had the authority to grant the benefits in question.Whether the benefits provided for officers in Grade-20 and above applied uniformly to all officers in the province, regardless of their work location.Whether the policy of other provinces or the federal government could be applied in Balochistan.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court allowed condonation of delay in filing the appeals due to important legal questions raised and to avoid legal complications arising from a mix of timely and untimely filed appeals.The Balochistan Service Tribunal's jurisdiction to grant benefits was questioned, especially concerning the application of policies designed for officers in Grade-20 and above.The Court considered the specific policy regarding orderly allowance and special additional pension in Balochistan, emphasizing its applicability to officers in Grade-20 and above working at the Balochistan Civil Secretariat. Officers in Grade-20 and above working in the field were not entitled to such allowances.The Court granted leave to appeal to further examine whether policies from other provinces or the federal government could be imposed in Balochistan.---Citations/Precedents:PIO 1975 SC 397 - Regarding the condonation of delay in filing appeals with some appeals within the limitation period and others not.Balochistan Finance Manual, 2008 Volume-I - Policy governing the payment of orderly allowance and special additional pension in Balochistan.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending