Summary: (Against the Judgment dated 23.12.2021 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Hyderabad in Constitutional Petition No. D-849 of 2021). (a) Sindh Public Service Commission (Recruitment Management) Regulations, 2006--- ----Reglns. 0358, 0359 & 0413---Position of Assistant Conservator Forests (BPS-17)---Conditions incorporated in the original advertisement altered without any readvertisement---High Court declared the recruitment process null and void with the directions to readvertise the posts afresh and allow all interested candidates to participate in the competitive process---Validity---It is an admitted position that the Sindh Public Service Commission ("SPSC") invited applications only for 2 posts of Assistant Conservator of Forest (BPS-17) on Urban quota, vide advertisement No.04/2020 dated 13.07.2020 and the last date of submitting applications was 20.08.2020---However, on 08.09.2020, an Addendum was issued which altered the complexion of the recruitment process for the 2 posts originally announced for urban candidates; it was modified and bifurcated, with 1 post allocated to Urban and 1 to Rural, without readvertising the 1 post dedicated to the Rural area---Not only was the original condition incorporated in the advertisement modified, but at the same time, no opportunity was afforded to the prospective candidates to apply for the 1 post dedicated to the Rural area which they could not apply for in terms of the original advertisement notifying only 2 posts for Urban areas---Another misstep was increasing the numbers of vacant posts from 2 to 7---Again, in the original advertisement, only 2 posts were announced, but departing from the original conditions, the number of posts were increased without readvertising---Furthermore, once the cutoff date for applications was fixed as 20.08.2020 for the general public, how was the deadline extended to 25.09.2020, through an Addendum dated 08.09.2020, without publishing any advertisement or re-advertisement in continuation of the original advertisement---Niceties of Regulations 0358, 0359 & 0413 of the Sindh Public Service Commission (Recruitment Management) Regulations, 2006 made it obligatory that upon the acceptance of additional vacancies or increase in the number of posts, the said posts should have been readvertised for inviting fresh applications, and the change of the closing date for the receipt of applications could not be altered unless notified, which again implies that the extension in the closing date should also be advertised for the general public who could not apply within the original timeline, but the SPSC failed to follow its own Regulations diligently---There were also allegations of a close nexus of certain candidates with high-ranking government officials, due to which preferential treatment and favoritism was allegedly proffered by the SPSC---Judgment of the High Court did not warrant any interference. (b) Civil service--- ----Appointment---Transparency in the appointment process---Significance---Wrong selection of "blue-eyed" candidates, based on nepotism, favoritism, or external pressures, leads to chaos and turmoil in the civil service structure, creating unrest and discontent among civil servants with serious repercussions---In all fairness, merit should be the sole criterion in the selection process, as it is an integral part of good governance---Lack of transparency or preferential treatment of undeserving candidates in the appointment process amounts to a brutal murder of merit and excellence---Transparent recruiting process should be marked by unambiguity, uprightness, trustworthiness, and evenhandedness---Honesty and integrity are the best means to magnetize talented individuals suited for the job, and an open-minded selection process should be based on objective criteria free from any extraneous considerations, while providing every candidate with a fair and equal opportunity to compete. Chief Secretary Punjab v. Abdul Raoof Dasti 2006 SCMR 1876; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Bacha Alam Khan 2022 SCMR 718; Suo Motu action regarding eligibility of Chairman and Members of Sindh Public Service Commission etc. 2017 SCMR 637; Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress AIR 1991 SC 101 and Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat 1997(7) SCC 622 ref. (c) Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 --- ----R. 12(2)---Sindh Public Service Commission (Recruitment Management) Regulations, 2006, Regln. 0612---Position of Assistant Conservator Forests (BPS-17)---Eligibility criteria---Upper age limit, relaxation in---Notification granting age relaxation of up to 15 years in the upper age limit---Legality---Joint reading of the Notification in question which approved the 15 years relaxation in the upper age limit and Regulation 0612 of the Sindh Public Service Commission (Recruitment Management) Regulations, 2006 ('2006 Regulations'), showed that the Government of Sindh could only relax the age of eligible candidates at its discretion through an Age Relaxation Order which could be issued collectively or specifically for any candidate ---Powers to authorize age relaxation for up to 2 years was vested in the Secretary of the concerned department while the Chief Secretary was authorized to accord age relaxation for up to 5 years only which was now raised up to 15 years---Even in the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 ('APT Rules'), the maximum age relaxation limit was 10 years which was by itself highly unjustified and excessive, and rather than curtailing this period by setting a well thought-out benchmark and being mindful of the norms of reasonableness and proportionality, the Government of Sindh, without any justifiable rhyme or reason, extended the age relaxation up to 15 years---In the context of the recruitment in issue, the maximum age was 30 years; if one added 15 years more, then a person, if selected for the job, would join his duty under the age of 45 years and would retire upon attaining the age of 60 years---Meaning that after just 15 years' tenure of service, he would be entitled to claim huge pensionary benefits, including other retiring benefits, which was also discriminatory to those employees who gave their blood and sweat, and toiled and served the government for more than 25 to 30 years and then became entitled to the pensionary and other retirement benefits---Supreme Court struck down the Notification and the Addendum by which relaxation of up to 15 years was granted in the upper age limit---Supreme Court directed that Sindh Public Service Commission should re-advertise the posts in question afresh and allow all interested candidates to participate in the competitive process---Petitions were dismissed and leave was refused. M. Aaqil Awan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners along with Petitioners (in C.P.L.A. No. 231 of 2022). Syed Qamar Hussain Sabzwari, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P.L.A. No. 827 of 2023). Sabtain Mehmood, Additional Advocate General Sindh for Petitioners (in C.P.L.A. No. 183-K of 2022). Sabtain Mehmood, Additional Advocate General Sindh for the Government of Sindh and SPSC (in C.P.L.As. Nos. 231 of 2022 and 827 of 2023). Dr. A. Jabbar Kazi, Additional Secretary, Forest. Hassan Akbar, Advocate General, Sindh. Fakhar Alam, Chief Secretary. Ali Imran Baloch, Secretary Law. M.Yousaf, Senior Law Officer, SPSC. M. Ishaque, Deputy Controller, SPSC (via video link from Karachi). Ghulam Sarwar Baloch, Advocate Supreme Court and Abida Parveen Channar, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 (via video link from Karachi) in C.P.L.A. No. 231 of 2022). Syed Qamar Hussain Sabzwari, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 13. Respondent No. 7 (in person (via video link from Karachi in C.P.L.A. No. 183-K of 2022). Date of hearing: 7th March, 2024.

Summary: Background: This case pertains to the appointments of Assistant Sub-Inspectors (ASIs) in the Sindh Police Department’s IT Cadre. In 2004, 113 individuals were recruited as ASIs (Computer). Over time, these individuals were transferred to the Executive Branch of the police department. The Sindh High Court allowed a constitutional petition filed by some of these ASIs, which challenged their return to the IT Cadre after serving in the Executive Branch for nearly 20 years. The Province of Sindh and others (appellants) challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the original cadre assignments should be upheld. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Whether ASIs appointed in the IT Cadre should be transferred back to their original cadre after serving in the Executive Branch for nearly 20 years. ----- 2) Whether the newly impleaded respondents (appointed in the IT Cadre in 2019) were condemned unheard, violating the principle of audi alteram partem. ----- 3) Whether the High Court's impugned judgment, allowing the respondents to continue in the Executive Branch, was valid. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ASIs' Cadre Assignment: The Supreme Court upheld the right of the ASIs (Computer) recruited in 2004 to continue serving in the Executive Branch, emphasizing that these ASIs had undergone police training and served in executive roles for nearly two decades. The court ruled that their continued service in the Executive Branch would not be cited as a precedent for future cases. Their seniority and promotions would be governed by the law and rules. ----- Impleadment of New Respondents: The court set aside the adverse observations made by the High Court against the newly impleaded respondents (those appointed in the IT Cadre in 2019) because they were not given an opportunity to be heard. The principle of audi alteram partem was violated, and as a result, the adverse findings against them were expunged. ----- High Court’s Judgment: While the court allowed the respondents to remain in the Executive Branch, it did not allow this practice to set a precedent. Additionally, the court directed that all seniority and promotions must follow the established rules and regulations. ----- Citations/Precedents: Gul Hassan Jatoi v. Faqir Muhammad Jatoi (2016 SCMR 1254): The court referred to this case to emphasize that the cadre of subordinate police officials should be determined by their recruitment, training, and service experience. Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 & Rules: Applied for regulating the recruitment and service conditions of non-uniformed personnel, such as those in the IT Cadre, as opposed to the Police Act, 1861, which governs uniformed personnel. The appeal was disposed of in the above terms, affirming the service of ASIs in the Executive Branch while ensuring that no similar actions be used as precedent in the future.

Summary: Background: Petitioners, who are permanent employees of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Police Department serving in District Police Neelum, challenged the decisions made by the police authorities regarding their promotions. Despite passing the required departmental examinations in 2009 for inclusion in promotion list "A1", the petitioners' names were not entered in the list. Instead, the authorities conducted new exams in 2011, allegedly to favor certain candidates. The petitioners sought redressal from various police authorities and filed a writ petition, which was withdrawn on the assurance that their names would be entered in list "A1" and subsequently in list "B1". However, this assurance was not fulfilled, leading to the present writ petition. ----Issues: 1- Whether the impugned orders and actions of the police authorities were against the police rules and fundamental rights of the petitioners. 2- Whether the petitioners are entitled to have their names entered in promotion list "B1" and be allowed to participate in the lower school course. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court found that the petitioners' claim to have their names entered in list "A1" was admitted by the respondents and that the petitioners had qualified the required exams in 2009. The Court noted that the petitioners had been litigating for over a decade and had possibly crossed the age limit for the promotion course due to the prolonged process. The Court held that the petitioners should not be penalized for the delay caused by the authorities and directed the respondents to conduct the exams for entering the petitioners' names in list "B" within two months, relaxing the age barrier. If the petitioners qualify the exams, their names should be inserted in list "B" and they should be nominated for the lower school course at Police Training School Muzaffarabad as per the law. ----Citations/Precedents: Rashid Ameer vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and 4 others [2018 PLC (C.S.) 822] Shahid Orakzai vs. Pakistan through Secretary Law, Ministry of Law, Islamabad [PLD 2011 SC 365] All Pakistan Textile Mills Association vs. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2009 Lah. 494=2009 PTD 1298]

Summary: Background: Petitioners challenged the shortlisting process conducted by the Public Service Commission (PSC) for the post of Senior Teacher (B-17) in the Social Welfare Department. They claimed the PSC allowed non-eligible candidates to participate, which was against the terms of the advertisement and the judgments of the Court. The petitioners sought to have the shortlisted candidates list voided and reissued, excluding non-eligible candidates and including those who applied in 2018 with the required qualifications. ----Issues: 1- Whether the PSC followed the proper qualifications criteria and advertisement terms in shortlisting candidates for the Senior Teacher post. 2- Whether the merit list should be prepared subject-wise as per Rule 12(2) of the AJ&K Public Service Commission Procedure Rules, 1994. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court found that the qualifications specified in the corrigendum to the advertisement were inconsistent with the relevant rules. The corrigendum was not aligned with the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Special Education Center Muzaffarabad Employees Rules, 2017, which outline the necessary qualifications for the post. The Court held that the conditions mentioned in the advertisement could not override the scheme of qualifications established by the rules. Any barrier or condition added through the advertisement that is not part of the rules is invalid. The Court dismissed the petitions, finding no force in the arguments presented by the petitioners. However, the PSC was directed to conduct viva voce interviews within one month and report compliance to the Court. ----Citations/Precedents: Rashid Ameer vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and 4 others [2018 PLC (C.S.) 822] Shahid Orakzai vs. Pakistan through Secretary Law, Ministry of Law, Islamabad [PLD 2011 SC 365] All Pakistan Textile Mills Association vs. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2009 Lah. 494=2009 PTD 1298]

Summary: Background: The petitioner, Professor Dr. Naeem Iqbal Ratyal, Chairman of the Department of Electrical Engineering at Mirpur University of Science and Technology (MUST), filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of Dr. Muhammad Sajid (Respondent No. 8) as Dean of the Faculty of Engineering and Technology at MUST, Mirpur. The petitioner claimed he was more qualified and had a higher score than Respondent No. 8, who was appointed by the Chancellor despite the Vice Chancellor's recommendation favoring the petitioner. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appointment of Dr. Muhammad Sajid as Dean was made contrary to the relevant rules and procedures. 2- Whether the Vice Chancellor's recommendation should have been the deciding factor in the appointment of the Dean. 3- Whether the Chancellor exercised proper discretion in appointing Dr. Muhammad Sajid as Dean. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Appointment Process: The court examined the relevant statutes from the Calendar of Mirpur University of Science and Technology (MUST), which stipulate that the Dean of each Faculty shall be appointed by the Chancellor on the recommendation of the Vice Chancellor from among the three senior-most professors in the Faculty for a period of three years. --Vice Chancellor's Recommendation: The Vice Chancellor forwarded a summary recommending the petitioner based on his higher score (60.8) compared to Respondent No. 8 (54.1). However, the Chancellor has the authority to select any one of the three senior-most professors recommended by the Vice Chancellor. --Chancellor’s Discretion: The court noted that while the Vice Chancellor can recommend a candidate, it is within the Chancellor's discretion to appoint any of the three recommended professors. The Chancellor is not bound to select the top-scoring candidate. The court found that the Chancellor's decision was within the bounds of the law and did not exhibit any arbitrary or unlawful conduct. The court concluded that the petitioner's claim lacked statutory backing, and there was no evidence of procedural violation or malfeasance in the Chancellor's decision. Thus, the court dismissed the writ petition. ----Citations/Precedents: Dr. Razia Sultana and others vs. Professor Dr. Ghazala Yasmeen and others [2016 SCMR 992] Dr. Munir Khan Khattak vs. Chancellor, the University of Agriculture, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 4 others [2017 PLC (C.S.) Note 10] Arshad Ali Tabassum v. The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore [2015 SCMR 112] The court emphasized that it would not interfere with the Chancellor's discretion unless there was clear evidence of legal or procedural violations. The appointment of Dr. Muhammad Sajid as Dean was upheld, and the petitioner's appeal was dismissed.

Summary: Background: The appeal challenges a decision from 11.12.2023 by a Judge-in-Chambers that dismissed Dr. Aqsa Rehman's constitutional petition, citing the inability to resolve factual controversy and noting the decision to offer a retainership assignment to respondent No.8 as a transitory arrangement.-----Issue: The appellant contests the Central Selection Committee's discretion in awarding a retainership to respondent No.8, alleging a lack of transparency, standards, and potential nepotism, despite the appellant being recommended by the Interviewing Committee for the same role.----Decision: The court did not find illegalities in the retainership agreement's award but emphasized the need for transparency, fairness, and structured discretion in such appointments. References were made to past Supreme Court jurisprudence emphasizing public functionaries' exercise of discretion and the need for public advertisement of positions.----Order: The court directed the Office of this Court to send a copy of the order to the Governing Body of PESSI and the Secretary, Labour and Human Resource Department, Government of Punjab, urging adherence to transparency and fairness in future appointments. The case was disposed of without any specific relief granted to the appellant.

Summary: (a) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)--- ----Ss. 372 & 384---West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963, Rr. 4.7, 4.8(d) & 4.10(2)(b)(iv)---Family pension---Succession Certificate---Eligibility of unmarried sister to receive monthly pension of her deceased and retired sister---After death of her sister, (retired lecturer) petitioner applied for issuance of succession certificate qua pensionary benefits of her deceased sister, however same was refused by the Trial Court---Validity---Dependents, who apply for financial provision, are the deceased wife, husband and children or a child of a family in relation to any marriage or any other person who immediately before the death of the deceased is mentioned, whereas, in the case at hand, appellant was admittedly a government employee and was receiving a pension following her retirement, which implied that she was not reliant on the deceased, as she was earning her income as a government employee---Term "dependent" is defined as an individual with no personal earnings and entirely reliant on his/her sister's income---Simply being an unmarried sister did not automatically qualify the appellant as a dependent of her deceased sister---Dependency is not determined by marital status but by financial reliance---Despite the familial relationship, appellant's financial independence negated her status as a dependent---Succession Appeal was dismissed accordingly. The Province of Punjab through the Secretary, Finance Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and others v. Kanwal Rashid and others 2021 SCMR 730 Distinguished. (b) West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963--- ----R.4.7(1)---Word 'family'---Definition provided. (c) Words and phrases--- ----Word 'dependent'---Connotation---Term "dependent" carries a significant meaning, denoting an individual who is reliant on another for support---This reliance could be emotional, financial, or physical, underscoring a fundamental inability to exist or sustain oneself independently--Dependent person requires another individual's power, aid, or assistance to navigate life's challenges---This dependency could be a result of various factors such as age, health conditions, financial circumstances, or emotional needs---For instance, a child depends on their parents, requiring their support for survival and growth, similarly, an elderly or ill person may be dependent on a caregiver for his daily needs---In a broader sense, the concept of being "dependent" highlights the interconnectedness of human society, where individuals often rely on each other for survival and prosperity. Safdar Ali Bhatti for Appellant. Ahmed Ali Shahani, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents. Dates of hearings: 22nd January, 2024 and 2nd February, 2024.

Summary: Background: The petitioner serving as an Assistant B-16 on an officiating basis in the office of the Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Azad Jammu & Kashmir, filed a writ petition challenging several orders and an inquiry report that imposed a penalty on him for alleged misconduct. The petitioner was accused of facilitating the main accused, Khurram Riaz, by submitting false applications with forged signatures and a stamp. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner, Muhammad Idrees Khan, committed misconduct by facilitating the submission of false applications. 2- Whether the inquiry and subsequent orders were legally justified and supported by evidence. 3- Whether the penalty imposed on the petitioner was appropriate. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Inquiry Findings: The inquiry officer found that Khurram Riaz, a Line Superintendent, was guilty of filing forged applications. The petitioner, Muhammad Idrees Khan, was alleged to have facilitated this by putting forged signatures and a stamp of Zaheer Ahmed, a lecturer. However, there was no evidence proving that the petitioner had any ill-gotten gains or malicious intent. --Role of the Petitioner: The court noted that the petitioner claimed he was handed an envelope by Babar Bashir to submit to the Ombudsman’s office, without knowledge of its contents or the falsified nature of the documents. There was no evidence showing how the petitioner obtained the stamp or that he stamped the documents himself. --Lack of Evidence: The court emphasized the lack of concrete evidence proving the petitioner’s involvement in the misconduct. The main accused, Khurram Riaz, admitted in his statement that the petitioner merely delivered an envelope on his behalf, without any indication of misconduct on the petitioner’s part. --Definition of Misconduct: The court referenced the Supreme Court of Pakistan’s definition of misconduct, which distinguishes between negligence and misconduct. It was concluded that the petitioner’s actions, even if negligent, did not amount to misconduct as defined by law. --Presidential Review: The President of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, in reviewing the case, excluded allegations of malice and forgery against the petitioner, further supporting the petitioner’s claim of good faith actions. The court held that the petitioner’s actions did not constitute misconduct and were carried out in good faith. The inquiry report, orders imposing a penalty, and the review petition's findings were all found to lack legal validity. Consequently, the writ petition was accepted, and the impugned orders were set aside. ----Citations/Precedents: Supreme Court of Pakistan in 2005 PLC (CS) para 67: Misconduct is defined as conduct inconsistent with normal rules, whereas negligence does not necessarily constitute misconduct. The court referenced this precedent to differentiate between negligence and misconduct in the petitioner’s case. The court's decision emphasized that conviction and penalties should be based on concrete evidence and not on presumption or inadequate proof. The petitioner, Muhammad Idrees Khan, was cleared of the allegations, and the penalties imposed were annulled.

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: Issue: The primary issues were whether unauthorized absence due to compelling circumstances beyond an employee's control can be deemed willful and whether the department had the authority to impose a removal from service penalty under Rule 6 of the Punjab Emergency Service Leave, Efficiency, and Discipline Rules 2007.----Holding: The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's unauthorized absence was not willful due to compelling circumstances of his incarceration on a false charge, from which he was later acquitted. The court also found that the removal from service was not an authorized penalty under Rule 6 of the Rules for such an absence, thereby reinstating the petitioner.----Reasoning: The court distinguished between unauthorized and willful absences, noting that compelling circumstances like incarceration justify unauthorized absence. It referenced the Supreme Court of Pakistan's decision in Ijaz Akbar v. The Director General (Ext.)L&DD, Punjab, Lahore and others (2024 PLC (C.S.) 129), which outlines the treatment of unauthorized absences. The court also noted the misapplication of the dictum in Muhammad Sardar Khan v. Senior Member (Establishment), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore (1985 SCMR 1062) by the respondent. Furthermore, it clarified that under Rule 6 of the Rules, the only penalty for unauthorized absence is a deduction of one-fifth of salary, not removal from service, which should instead be pursued under the Punjab Employees Efficiency and Discipline Act, 2006 (PEEDA) if necessary.----Disposition: The petition was accepted, the impugned orders were set aside, and the petitioner was reinstated in service. The court left the determination of back benefits to the discretion of the department, to be decided within three months, considering the principle of proportionality