Summary: (a) Punjab Emergency Service Leave, Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 2007 --- Rr. 6(m) & 7 --- Unauthorized absence from duty --- Removal from service --- Validity --- Applicability of PEEDA Act, 2006. Petitioner, a regular employee (Fire Rescuer) of Rescue 1122, was removed from service for unauthorized absence without prior sanctioned leave. The department imposed removal under Rule 6(m) of the 2007 Rules. Held, the said rule merely prescribes deduction of one-fifth of salary for absence without permission and does not envisage the penalty of dismissal or removal. For regular employees, such as the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings including removal must be initiated under Rule 7 of the Rules read with the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA), which allows for major penalties in cases of proven misconduct. The impugned removal order was, therefore, illegal and without lawful authority. Cited case: Faisal Mehboob Khan v. Chief Secretary Punjab (2018 PLC (C.S.) 216) (b) Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 --- S. 2(n)(vii) --- Misconduct --- Absence from duty --- Willful absence --- Determination --- Compelling circumstances. Absence due to arrest in a criminal case registered under Ss. 302/148/149, P.P.C., and incarceration for over five years, followed by acquittal, cannot be deemed a willful absence. Held, unauthorized absence is not always deliberate or intentional; it may arise from circumstances beyond the employee’s control. Departmental authorities are obligated to examine the element of willfulness before imposing any penalty. In the present case, the department failed to inquire into or determine whether the petitioner’s absence was willful, despite his justified explanation based on incarceration. Hence, removal from service was disproportionate and unsustainable in law. Cited cases: Ijaz Akbar v. Director General (Ext.), Punjab (2024 PLC (C.S.) 129) Muhammad Sardar Khan v. Senior Member, Board of Revenue (1985 SCMR 1062) — distinguished (c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 --- Art. 199 --- Constitutional jurisdiction --- Judicial review of disciplinary orders --- Standard of review --- Principle of proportionality. Court held that judicial review of disciplinary action involves assessing whether punishment imposed is proportionate to the misconduct and whether relevant considerations were properly evaluated. An employer must act reasonably and consider the magnitude and circumstances of alleged misconduct. The doctrine of proportionality mandates that penalty be commensurate with the proven fault. In this case, removal from service was imposed without inquiry or consideration of compelling justification (incarceration), violating principles of fairness and proportionality. Impugned orders were accordingly set aside and reinstatement ordered. (d) Service law --- Delay in departmental appeal --- Justification --- Effect. Appeal filed after over five years was not barred by limitation where the delay was caused due to incarceration in a criminal case. Petitioner had not relied upon acquittal for reinstatement but only as a factual justification for his prolonged absence and delay in pursuing remedies. Held, delay was satisfactorily explained and could not form the basis for rejection of appeal without considering merits. Disposition: Petition allowed. Removal orders set aside. Petitioner reinstated in service. Department to decide quantum of back benefits within three months in light of proportionality.

Summary: Facts:The petitioner, Ali Khan, filed a constitution petition directly in the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, seeking to declare the General Elections 2024 null and void due to flagrant violations of democratic norms.The petition received significant media attention before its filing. Subsequently, the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition, claiming no further interest in pursuing the case.---Issue:Whether the petitioner's actions constitute an abuse of the court's process, warranting dismissal of the petition with exemplary costs.---Holding:The petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with the court imposing costs of five hundred thousand rupees, payable equally to the Pakistan Bar Council and the Supreme Court Bar Association.---Reasoning:The court identified the petitioner's actions as an abuse of process, aimed at gaining publicity rather than pursuing a legitimate legal claim.The petitioner failed to attend the hearing or respond to notices, and had left the country shortly after filing the petition.The petitioner was found to have misrepresented his status as an ex-Brigadier, having been court-martialed and stripped of his rank in 2012.---Order:The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.Costs of five hundred thousand rupees are imposed on the petitioner, payable within thirty days to the Pakistan Bar Council and the Supreme Court Bar Association.The court directed the Government of Pakistan to ensure that the petitioner does not use the rank of Brigadier or any similar title.

Summary: Merged judgement ---- (a) Constitutional Law—Scope of Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) Proceedings Post-Retirement or Resignation of a Judge ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Article 209(5) & (6)---Supreme Judicial Council’s (SJC) jurisdiction to inquire into misconduct of a judge---Held, that proceedings initiated by the SJC against a judge do not automatically abate upon his resignation or retirement—SJC retains jurisdiction to complete the inquiry and report its opinion to the President under Article 209(6) of the Constitution. Cited Case Law: Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others v. President of Pakistan and others (PLD 2022 SC 119) Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others v. President of Pakistan and others (PLD 2021 SC 1) The President v. Mr. Justice Shaukat Ali (PLD 1971 SC 585) (b) Constitutional Law—Independence of Judiciary and Judicial Accountability ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Preamble & Articles 209, 175(3)---Judicial independence and accountability must be balanced to maintain public trust in the judiciary---Held, that the SJC, as an independent constitutional body, must conduct inquiries against judges to their logical conclusion, even if the judge resigns or retires, to prevent circumvention of accountability. Cited Case Law: Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry v. President of Pakistan through Secretary and others (PLD 2010 SC 61) Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2018 SC 538) (c) Constitutional Interpretation—Requirement of Notice to Attorney General in Cases Involving Constitutional Interpretation ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Article 184(3)---Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXVII-A---Mandatory notice to the Attorney General in matters involving constitutional interpretation---Held, that failure to issue notice to the Attorney General before interpreting Article 209 rendered the impugned judgment defective---Appeal allowed on this ground. Cited Case Law: Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law v. M.D. Tahir, Advocate (1989 SCMR 2069) Federal Public Service Commission v. Syed Muhammad Afaq (PLD 2002 SC 167) (d) Judicial Ethics—Impact of a Judge's Resignation During Disciplinary Proceedings ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Article 209---Whether a judge may evade accountability by resigning during an ongoing SJC inquiry---Held, that allowing resignation to terminate proceedings undermines public trust and judicial accountability---The SJC must conclude the inquiry to ensure transparency. Cited Case Law: Steensland v. Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (87 So. 3d 535, USA) In re Proceedings before the Commission on Judicial Tenure & Discipline (578 A.2d 1387, USA) (e) Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) Procedure—Need for Reform and Structural Amendments ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Article 209---Supreme Judicial Council Procedure of Inquiry, 2005---Held, that delays in processing complaints against judges contribute to the erosion of public confidence---Recommended amendments to ensure timely and independent functioning of the SJC. Cited Case Law: Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others v. President of Pakistan and others (PLD 2021 SC 1) The President v. Mr. Justice Shaukat Ali (PLD 1971 SC 585) ------ Disposition: Both intra-court appeals were partially allowed. The Supreme Court held that proceedings initiated against a judge before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) shall not abate upon the judge’s resignation or retirement. The impugned judgment was modified, reaffirming the SJC’s prerogative to proceed with inquiries without interference. The requirement of notice to the Attorney General under Order XXVII-A CPC was confirmed as mandatory in matters involving constitutional interpretation.

Summary: ''Rights of an accused under custody elaborated. Duties of the police and Magistrates explained.'' ----- Issues:Whether Muhammad Azam was illegally detained by the police officials.The legality of the actions taken by the police after the court's order to produce the detainee.The procedural conduct of the police and the magistrate involved in the case.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court, presided by Justice Ali Zia Bajwa, found that Muhammad Azam was indeed in illegal custody and highlighted multiple procedural irregularities in his arrest and detention. The court noted the police's failure to produce Azam promptly and their attempt to legitimize his custody after the court's intervention. This conduct was considered evasive and led to a show-cause notice for contempt against the police officer responsible.An inquiry confirmed Azam's illegal detention, resulting in his discharge from the criminal case and the initiation of actions against the delinquent police officials. The court emphasized the constitutional and statutory protections against illegal detention, including Articles 4, 9, 10, and 14 of the Constitution, and relevant sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.The court criticized the magistrate's mechanical approval of Azam's detention for a Test Identification Parade (TIP) without thorough consideration of the evidence, deeming it a non-speaking order. The judgment underscored the necessity for magistrates to exercise due diligence and transparency in remand decisions to prevent unlawful detentions.Ultimately, the court disposed of the writ petition, reiterating the fundamental rights of individuals in custody and the responsibility of magistrates and police to uphold these rights. The show cause notice against the Station House Officer was withdrawn, leaving disciplinary matters to the police's internal accountability mechanisms.------Citations/Precedents:Ismaeel vs. The State - 2010 SCMR 27: Highlighted the sanctity of rights under Articles 4, 9, and 10 of the Constitution.Muhammad Siddiq vs. Province of Sindh - PLD 1992 Karachi 358: Discussed the importance of arrest reports under Section 62 of the Code for judicial scrutiny of police actions.Khizer Hayat vs. Inspector General of Police (Punjab) - PLD 2005 Lahore 470: Emphasized the supervisory role of Area Magistrates in police investigations.Ghulam Sarwar vs. The State - 1984 P.Cr.L.J. 2588: Criticized the practice of presenting accused individuals before a Magistrate outside regular court hours.Important Note: The court underscored the need for magistrates and police officials to diligently uphold the law, particularly regarding illegal detention and the treatment of detainees. It highlighted the importance of adherence to legal protocols, including the necessity of presenting detainees before a magistrate within specified timeframes and ensuring that any extension of custody is lawfully sanctioned.

Summary: ''Detailed reasons for holding that Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution is not a self-executory provision and for overruling Sami Ullah Baloch v. Abdul Karim Nausherwani (PLD 2018 SC 405) with Justice Mansoor Ali Shah's opinion.'' ---- Issue:Does the lifetime disqualification for electoral candidacy under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution align with the Constitution itself, especially in light of Section 232(2) of the Elections Act 2017, which prescribes a maximum disqualification period of five years?

Summary: Background: The petition, along with nine other related petitions, challenged certain provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1964. The central issue revolved around whether a decree for maintenance, when the amount awarded was less than Rs.5000 per month per person, was appealable. The petitioners argued that if the aggregate sum awarded exceeded Rs.5000, even though individually each amount was below this threshold, an appeal should still be allowed. They also questioned the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Family Courts Act after the insertion of Article 10-A (right to a fair trial) into the Constitution. ----- Issues: ----- 1)Whether a decree for maintenance less than Rs.5000 per month per person is appealable if the cumulative amount exceeds Rs.5000? -----2) Whether the ouster of appeal under Sections 14(2)(b) and (c) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, violates the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 10-A? ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ----- Non-Appealability of Maintenance Decrees under Rs.5000 Per Month (per person): The Court held that the amount specified in Section 14(2)(c) of the Family Courts Act applies to each individual plaintiff. The legislature's intent was clear in making decrees non-appealable when the maintenance awarded to each individual is less than Rs.5000 per month. The Court refused to read the words "in aggregate" or "in total" into the statute, concluding that the right to appeal is only barred when the individual amount is less than Rs.5000 per month. ----- Constitutionality of Section 14(2)(b) and (c): The Court ruled that the provisions of the Family Courts Act do not violate Article 10-A of the Constitution. Article 10-A guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process but does not mandate an automatic right to appeal. The Court referenced international and domestic precedents, asserting that the absence of an appellate right in specific limited cases, such as maintenance below Rs.5000, did not amount to a violation of fundamental rights. ----- Repugnancy to Islamic Injunctions: The petitioners’ argument that the ouster of the appeal provision was against Islamic injunctions was rejected. The Court noted that only the Federal Shariat Court has the jurisdiction to declare a law repugnant to Islam under Article 203D of the Constitution. ----- Annual Increase in Maintenance: Regarding Section 17A(3), which provides for an automatic annual increase in maintenance, the Court held that this increase does not render a decree appealable under Section 14(2)(c) because the increase operates by law after the judgment. ----- Legal Aid: The Court directed the Government of Punjab to operationalize the Punjab Legal Aid Agency to assist indigent persons, particularly women and children, in family matters. ----- Citations/Precedents: Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance and others v. M/s. Noori Trading Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. (1992 SCMR 710) Hudabiya Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior (PLD 1998 Lahore 90) Shrin Munir and others v. Government of Punjab (PLD 1990 SC 295) Tayyaba Yunus v. Muhammad Ehsan and others (2010 SCMR 1403) Abid Hussain v. Additional District Judge, Alipur, District Muzaffargarh and another (2006 SCMR 100) Central Government of Pakistan v. Suleman Khan and others (PLD 1992 SC 590) Uzin Export Import Enterprises For Foreign Trade, Karachi v. Union Bank of Middle East Ltd. (PLD 1994 SC 95) Sarfraz v. Additional District Judge and 5 others (2017 YLR 1684) Gul Zaman v. Deputy Commissioner/Collector Gwadar (2024 SCMR 481)

Summary: Background: The petitioner, an Assistant Education Officer, filed a writ petition under Article 44 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974, challenging a proposal dated 13.11.2023, which allegedly sought to transfer him from his current position. The petitioner contended that the proposal was initiated by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, who had no authority over the affairs of the Education Department, and sought to have the proposal declared illegal, void ab initio, and against constitutional and policy mandates. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly has the authority to initiate a transfer proposal within the Education Department. 2- Whether the petitioner has a vested right to remain in his current posting. 3- Whether the impugned proposal warrants interference by the court. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Authority of the Speaker: The court found that the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly does not have the authority to initiate transfer proposals within the Education Department. The learned Legal Advisor for the Education Department confirmed that no such proposal had been processed by the department and that any such proposal from the Speaker was fictitious. --Vested Right to Current Posting: The court noted that the petitioner does not have a vested right to remain in his current position. Transfer and posting within the department are governed by the exigencies of the department, and the competent authority has the discretion to transfer personnel as needed. --Interference by the Court: The court determined that there was no basis for interference as the apprehensions of the petitioner were based on a facsimile of an alleged proposal from an irrelevant office. The court emphasized that departmental authorities are obligated to follow constitutionally mandated rules, specifically the AJ&K Rules of Business, 1985. The argument presented by the Legal Advisor for the Education Department was found to be weighty, highlighting that the proposal from the Speaker was not relevant. The writ petition was dismissed as meritless. The court found no reason to interfere with the alleged proposal, especially since the proposal was not processed by the relevant authority and did not pertain to the petitioner's vested rights.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a candidate for the National Assembly of Pakistan from NA-128, filed a constitutional petition challenging the order of the Returning Officer (R.O.) on 08.02.2024. The petitioner claimed that the consolidation of election results was conducted unlawfully in his absence. He alleged that despite winning the election by a large margin, he was evicted from the consolidation process by law enforcement officials at the behest of the Returning Officer, and the final result was manipulated. The petitioner sought a writ directing the respondents to allow him to participate in the consolidation process, as required by Rule 85 of the Election Rules, 2017, and to declare the consolidation unlawful. -----Issues: 1- Was the consolidation of results conducted lawfully in the presence of the petitioner? 2- Does the petitioner have a valid constitutional claim under Article 199 against the Returning Officer for consolidating results in his absence? 3- Should the court intervene or direct the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) regarding the consolidation process? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Lawfulness of Consolidation: The court noted that under the Elections Act, 2017, the consolidation of results is a prescribed procedure that must involve the presence of candidates or their representatives. The petitioner’s complaint that the consolidation took place in his absence and was manipulated raised factual disputes that could not be resolved through constitutional jurisdiction. Constitutional Claim: The court held that election matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of election tribunals as per Article 225 of the Constitution. Any grievance regarding the election process, including consolidation or recounting, should be raised before the Election Commission of Pakistan through the remedies provided in the Elections Act, 2017, rather than through a constitutional petition. Court’s Ruling: The court dismissed the petition, citing that it was not maintainable in constitutional jurisdiction. The petitioner was directed to pursue remedies under Sections 8, 9, 15, and 95 of the Elections Act, 2017, before the Election Commission of Pakistan. -----Citations/Precedents: Zulfiqar Ali Bhatti vs. Election Commission of Pakistan (2022) Muhammad Raza Hayat Hiraj vs. Election Commission of Pakistan (2015 SCMR 233) Aurangzeb Khan vs. Election Commission of Pakistan (PLD 2010 SC 34) Ali Asjad Malhi vs. Syeda Nosheen Iftikhar (PLD 2023 SC 1)

Summary: Issue:The primary legal issue centered on whether procuring agencies can exclude insurance bonds as a form of performance security and the legality of the PPRA's circular in light of existing procurement laws and Standard Bidding Documents (SBDs).---Holding:The Lahore High Court held that procuring agencies possess the discretion to determine the acceptable form of performance security, including the exclusion of insurance bonds, within the parameters of the procurement framework established by the relevant laws and regulations. The court found that such discretion does not contravene the Standard Bidding Documents (SBDs) developed by the Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC) or the advisory decisions made by the Executive Committee of National Economic Council (ECNEC).---Reasoning:The court's reasoning was grounded in an analysis of the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) Ordinance 2002, the PPRA Act 2009, and the respective rules and regulations under both the Federal and Punjab governments. It was determined that these legal frameworks grant procuring agencies the authority to establish their procurement procedures, including the specification of performance securities. The court also noted that while the SBDs prepared by PEC serve as a benchmark for engineering contracts, they are not mandatory for government procurement processes. Furthermore, the court held that the ECNEC's advisory decisions do not supersede the statutory provisions, allowing procuring agencies the flexibility to amend or adapt SBDs as necessary for their specific procurement needs.---Order:The court directed the procuring agencies to issue fresh notices to the petitioners, requiring them to furnish the specified form of security as per the applicable SBDs within 28 days from the issuance of the notice. Failure to comply could result in actions in accordance with the terms and conditions of the applicable contract.--- Discussed case law:However, the judgment did reference a decision by a Single Bench of the Lahore High Court in W.P. No. 72544 / 2021 titled "M/s RMS Pvt. Ltd. v. Govt. of the Punjab & others," where deviation from PEC's SBDs was considered unlawful with respect to the exclusion of insurance bond/guarantee by a procuring agency in Punjab. It is important to note that this decision was mentioned to have been suspended by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court at the time of this judgment.Moreover, the judgment mentioned the decision in the case titled "Nisar Ahmed Khan v. National Highway Authority and others" decided by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh in C.P. No. D-2779 / 2023 on 03.08.2023, which recognized the right of a procuring agency (in this case, the National Highway Authority) to prescribe the form of performance guarantee under the SBDs of PEC.

Summary: 10. In the instant matter, petitioner is not an aggrieved person. No action of Government was either proposed for him or against him. None of his legal right, whatsoever, has been violated. The amendment to Section 2(c) of the Decoration Act, 1975, appears constitutionally valid. The broadened definition of "gallantry" aligns with constitutional provisions and established legal principles, supported by definitions from renowned dictionaries. Judicial precedents emphasize the presumption of constitutionality, the burden of proof on petitioners, and the judiciary's role in enforcing existing rights rather than creating new ones. Additionally, the petitioner lacks locus standi and hasn't demonstrated a violation of legal rights. Therefore, the petition challenging the constitutionality of the amendment is not found maintainable. 11. In view of the above facts and observations made by the Honorable Supreme Court as well as High Court in various cases, instant petition is bereft of any merit stands dismissed in limine. Above are the reasons of our short order dated 02.04.2024.