Summary: Background: The petitioner, employed as a Junior Clerk at a Cadet College, was compulsorily retired from service on 5th March 2021, following allegations of misconduct and inefficiency. This decision, challenged via departmental appeal and review, was upheld. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, claiming procedural irregularities in the disciplinary proceedings, lack of a formal inquiry, and violation of his right to a fair trial. -----Issues: 1- Was the compulsory retirement of the petitioner imposed following the procedural requirements under the applicable regulations? -----2- Did the failure to hold a formal inquiry violate the petitioner’s constitutional right to due process and a fair trial? -----3- Was the show cause notice sufficiently specific to allow the petitioner to defend himself adequately? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The writ petition was allowed. The disciplinary proceedings leading to the petitioner’s compulsory retirement were declared void, and he was reinstated in service subject to the return of dues. The college was directed to hold de novo proceedings, including a regular inquiry. --Non-compliance with Regulations: Under the “Efficiency & Discipline Regulations,” a regular inquiry is mandatory for imposing major penalties like compulsory retirement unless dispensed with for valid, documented reasons. No such reasons were recorded in the petitioner’s case. --Deficient Show Cause Notice: The show cause notice failed to specify clear, actionable allegations against the petitioner. The charges were vague and relied on past conduct without directly addressing the allegations prompting the disciplinary action. The notice did not meet the criteria outlined in judicial precedents, which require clarity, specificity, and adherence to procedural safeguards. --Violation of Fair Trial Rights: The petitioner was deprived of his fundamental right to a fair trial under Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution. The absence of a regular inquiry denied him the opportunity to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and defend himself adequately. --Improper Dispensation of Inquiry: While the department can dispense with a formal inquiry in exceptional circumstances, this requires compelling reasons recorded in writing. Such reasons were absent, rendering the proceedings legally flawed. The compulsory retirement order, appellate decision, and review dismissal were set aside. The petitioner was reinstated but required to refund pensionary dues. The college was directed to conduct fresh disciplinary proceedings, including a regular inquiry, within three months. -----Citations/Precedents: 2024 SCMR 80 – Sanaullah Sani vs. Secretary Education Schools and Others 2023 SCMR 603 – Federation of Pakistan vs. Zahid Malik 2017 SCMR 356 – Muhammad Naeem Akhtar vs. Managing Director Water and Sanitation Agency LDA 2022 SCMR 327 – Senior Superintendent of Police (Operations) vs. Shahid Nazir

Summary: ----Petitioner was an inspector of IB who has been compulsorily retired on charges of corruption. His appeal is pending before DG IB. Seeks direction for decision. ----Background: The petitioner, a former Inspector in the Intelligence Bureau, challenged the delay in the decision of his departmental appeal against the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon him under Rule 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent authority to decide his appeal under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1895. The departmental appeal was filed on 19.03.2021 but remained undecided as of June 2022, when the writ petition was filed. ----Issues: 1- Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternate remedy under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. -----2- Whether the petitioner could invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to compel the decision of his departmental appeal, given the lapse of the limitation period for approaching the Federal Service Tribunal (FST). ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome --Bar Under Article 212 of the Constitution: The court noted that the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 provides a clear remedy for civil servants to file an appeal with the FST after 90 days from the filing of a departmental appeal if it remains undecided. The petitioner failed to utilize this remedy within the stipulated limitation period. --Limitation Under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act: The court emphasized that the petitioner had the option to file an appeal with the FST within 30 days after the lapse of the 90-day period from the filing of the departmental appeal. Since the petitioner neither filed an appeal within this time nor provided a valid reason for the delay, his writ petition was barred. --Adequate Alternate Remedy: The court observed that the statutory framework under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 provides a complete mechanism for addressing delays in deciding departmental appeals, rendering the writ petition inadmissible. --Distinction from Precedents Cited: The court distinguished the petitioner’s case from those relied upon, such as S.H.M. Rizvi and Noor Azad Khan, noting that those cases involved pending departmental proceedings before any final order was passed. In the current case, a final penalty order had already been issued, and the delay pertained only to the decision of the appeal. The writ petition was dismissed, with the court holding that the petitioner should have pursued the statutory remedy provided under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court could not be invoked under these circumstances. ----Citations/Precedents: Chief Engineer (North) and another v. Saifullah Khan Khalid (1995 SCMR 776) Mir Ajab Khan v. Deputy Postmaster-General, SRP, Dera Ismail Khan (2013 SCMR 1053) Lt. Cdr. (Rtd.) Engineer Abdul Aziz Narejo v. Karachi Port Trust (2006 PLC (C.S.) 88) Mst. Saira Iram v. Chief Secretary Punjab Lahore (2019 PLC (C.S.) 427) S.H.M. Rizvi v. Maqsood Ahmad (PLD 1981 SC 612) Noor Azad Khan v. FOP through Secretary Cabinet Division (2014 PLC (C.S.) 1255)

Summary: Held that it is misconceived on part of the petitioner that bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is not attracted in the present case, since probe on the basis of which the petitioner has been compulsorily retired does not relate to his post-appointment period but pertains to his initial appointment/induction as EST/SVT inasmuch as Section 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 pertains to the ?appointment' of a person to a civil service or a civil post in connection with the affairs of the province and contemplates that such appointment is to be in accordance with the prescribed rules whereas Section 15 of the Act pertains to efficiency and discipline. Meaning thereby that appointment to the post is part of the larger ambit of the terms and conditions of service under the Act being the first step towards the same and must be in accordance with prescribed procedure since such appointment triggers applicability of remaining terms and conditions pertaining to the service of a civil servant, inter alia, probation, confirmation, seniority, promotion, posting, transfer, termination, removal and the disciplinary proceedings under the law. Moreover, the law does not create any distinction between the probe against a civil servant for any wrong done at the time of his induction/initial appointment or after such appointment of a civil servant.

Summary: Background:Muhammad Shafique, an Upper Division Clerk (UDC) at NAB, was compulsorily retired from service due to unauthorized absence for 66 days. Shafique challenged the penalty through a writ petition, arguing that since his absence was treated as extraordinary leave (EOL) without pay, compulsory retirement was unjustified. The Islamabad High Court accepted his plea and directed Shafique's reinstatement with back benefits. NAB appealed against this decision.---Issues:Whether the imposition of compulsory retirement as a penalty for unauthorized absence, despite treating it as extraordinary leave, was justified.The interpretation of the relevant rules regarding the treatment of unauthorized absence.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:NAB contended that Shafique had a history of absences totaling 1627 days during his service, with repeated warnings issued.Despite receiving a show cause notice for his 66-day absence and responding with a request to adjust it as casual leave, Shafique's explanation was not accepted.The office order imposing compulsory retirement explicitly mentioned the unauthorized absence as the reason for the penalty.While the rule allowed for the retrospective grant of extraordinary leave for unauthorized absence, it did not mandate it in every case.The court held that the treatment of unauthorized absence as extraordinary leave did not nullify the major penalty of compulsory retirement, especially when the penalty was imposed after due consideration of the employee's conduct.Rulings in similar cases were distinguished based on specific circumstances, such as hospitalization during absence.The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's decision and dismissing Shafique's writ petition.---Citations/Precedents:Lahore Development Authority vs. Muhammad Nadeem Kachloo (2006 SCMR 434)Director General Intelligence Bureau vs. Muhammad Javed (2012 SCMR 165)Muhammad Sharif Abbasi vs. Member, Water, WAPDA Lahore (2013 SCMR 903)

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background:The respondents in these appeals were allegedly involved in obtaining employment in the police department based on fake and forged School Leaving Certificates. Upon discovery of this forgery, they were compulsorily retired from service and faced criminal prosecution through the registration of various FIRs. Seeking premature acquittal, the respondents applied under section 249-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), and the trial court acquitted them, with the High Court subsequently upholding these acquittals in separate appeals filed by the State.---Issues:Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondents based on the misconception of double jeopardy arising from their compulsory retirement from service.Whether disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution, arising from the same incident, constitute double jeopardy.Whether the provisions of section 249-A, Cr.P.C. were correctly invoked in these cases.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The trial court and the High Court had misconstrued the concept of double jeopardy in acquitting the respondents based on their compulsory retirement from service. It was clarified that disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution are distinct and can proceed simultaneously or consecutively without invoking double jeopardy.Citing numerous precedent cases, including M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd., v. The Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and Muhammad Sarwar v. Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Tehsil Ferozewala, the Supreme Court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings aim to maintain service integrity, while criminal prosecution aims to punish offenses.The court found that the provisions of section 249-A, Cr.P.C. were incorrectly applied as there was no groundlessness or lack of probability of conviction in the respondents' cases.Therefore, all the appeals were allowed, the acquittal orders were set aside, and the respondents' status as accused persons in the relevant criminal cases was restored. They were directed to face trial proceedings accordingly.---Citations/Precedents:M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd., v. The Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 1979 SC 75)Muhammad Sarwar v. Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Tehsil Ferozewala (NLR 1989 Service 81)Nazir Ahmed v. Capital City Police Officer, Lahore (2011 SCMR 484)Muhammad Iqbal v. District Police Officer, Sahiwal (2011 SCMR 534)

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged an office order issued by a national institution that imposed the penalty of "compulsory retirement from service" for unauthorized absence from duty for 66 days. The absence was also treated as extraordinary leave without pay. The petitioner contended that the absence was due to a spinal cord injury following an accident and that leave applications were submitted during this period. However, the respondent argued that the petitioner had a history of extended leaves, totaling 1,627 days during their tenure, and failed to provide sufficient evidence of illness or comply with directives to appear before a medical board. -----Issues: 1- Was the imposition of compulsory retirement lawful when the absence had been regularized as extraordinary leave without pay? ----2- Did the respondent follow proper legal procedures in penalizing the petitioner for the absence? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Review of Leave and Absence: The Court noted that while the petitioner availed an excessive number of leaves during their tenure, the specific 66-day absence in question was treated as extraordinary leave without pay by the respondent. The petitioner failed to substantiate claims of illness adequately and did not comply with directives to appear before a medical board. --Supreme Court Precedent: The Court relied on the judgment in Lahore Development Authority vs. Muhammad Nadeem Kachloo (2006 SCMR 434), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that once an absence is treated as leave without pay, imposing a major penalty such as dismissal or compulsory retirement is unjustified. --Application of Legal Principles: The Court held that penalizing the petitioner after regularizing their absence as extraordinary leave without pay was legally inconsistent. It emphasized that decisions of the Supreme Court, which bind all courts and organs of the state, must be adhered to. The petition was allowed. The office order imposing compulsory retirement was set aside. The Court ruled that the respondent could not penalize the petitioner for the absence in question, as it had already been regularized as leave without pay. -----Citations/Precedents: Lahore Development Authority vs. Muhammad Nadeem Kachloo and another (2006 SCMR 434) Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution of Pakistan (binding authority of Supreme Court judgments).

Summary: Balochistan Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (VI of 1989) -------S. 5---Balochistan Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1992, Rr.2(1) (f) &4(b)(ii)---Judicial service---Nature---Judicial officer (District and Sessions Judge)---Allegationof misconduct---Compulsory retirement---Scope---Inquiry was conducted against the Officer bya Judge of High Court---Recommendation for imposing major penalty was also given by thesitting Judge of High Court---Authority, after fulfilling the legal formalities had passed theimpugned punishment---Personal file of officer was full of explanations, show-cause notices,warnings and complaints---Law required the Authority to consider the entire service record ofemployee while assessing whether he/she could be compulsory retired---Case of a judicial officerwas required to be examined treating him/her to be differently than other civil servants---Honesty and integrity of judicial officer was expected to be beyond doubt---Nature of judicialservice was such that it could not afford to suffer continuance in service of a persons withdoubtful integrity or the one who had lost his/her utility in order to keep the stream of justiceunpolluted---Judge could not be stamped with the label of doubtful integrity in absence oftangible material---General impression of the Judge as a corrupt Judge in the mind of generalpublic was alone sufficient for his/her compulsory retirement by the Authority---Officerremained an average officer throughout her service career and never improved---Judicial officerdid not enjoy good reputation in the eyes of general public as well as her superiors---Compulsoryretirement was a major penalty but differed from dismissal and removal from service as it did notinvolve penal consequences---Person compulsorily retired was entitled to pension and otherretirement benefits proportionate to the period of service standing to his/her credit---Officer hadalready attained the age of superannuation---No chance to make allegation of non-application ofjudicial mind and mala fides in making the decision against the officer existed---Sufficientmaterial was available to connect the officer with the commission of misconduct during herservice---Inquiry Officer as well as Authorized Officer had appreciated the evidence in its trueperspective---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Summary: Facts:Haroon-ur-Rashid, Deputy Director (Revenue) at LDA, was suspended and issued a show cause notice for alleged irregularities. After contesting the notice, he was compulsorily retired from service. His departmental appeal was dismissed, and his writ petition challenging the retirement was also dismissed by the Lahore High Court on the grounds that the statutory rules of service were not applicable, and the principle of master and servant applied.---Legal Issue:The main issue was whether the disciplinary action taken under PEEDA, a statutory enactment, against an employee of a statutory authority like LDA, is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan.----Judgment:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. The Court held that employees of statutory authorities, when proceeded against under a statutory framework like PEEDA, can seek redress under Article 199 of the Constitution.---Reasoning:The Court clarified that despite LDA employees being governed by non-statutory rules, the disciplinary proceedings were conducted under PEEDA, which is a statutory framework. Therefore, actions taken under PEEDA are subject to judicial review under writ jurisdiction. The Court distinguished between civil servants and employees of statutory bodies for the purpose of appealing departmental actions, stating that while civil servants may appeal to the Service Tribunal, employees of statutory bodies like LDA, when subject to disciplinary actions under a statute like PEEDA, can invoke the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199.