Summary: (1) It is the prerogative of the competent authority to decide the quantum of punishment which includes the consideration of proportionality in awarding the punishment (2) Doctrine of proportionality is meant to impose punishment commensurate to the gravity of misconduct (3) Taking into consideration the long length of service, the dismissal from service was converted into compulsory retirement.

Summary: (a) Contract Act, 1872 ----S. 70—Quantum meruit—Void appointment—Recovery of salary—Petitioner served for 15 years before appointment was found void for failure to meet minimum educational criteria—No allegation of fraud or concealment—Services rendered were accepted and remunerated without objection—Supreme Court held that doctrine of quantum meruit applied—Labor rendered in good faith and accepted by employer over extended period entitled to reasonable compensation—Retrospective recovery of salary impermissible in absence of fraudulent intent. References: Craven-Ellis v. Cannons Ltd (1936) 2 KB 403; Benedetti v. Sawiris [2013] UKSC 50; State of West Bengal v. M/s B.K. Mondal and Sons AIR 1962 SC 779. (b) Administrative Law ----Doctrine of acquiescence—Delayed departmental inquiry—Appointment made in 2003, scrutinized only after 15 years—No timely verification or oversight by department—Supreme Court held that institutional silence and prolonged acceptance of service created bar to retrospective recovery—Department estopped from invoking punitive financial measures for its own negligence—Termination for ineligibility upheld, but financial restitution disallowed. References: Ramsden v. Dyson (1866) LR 1 HL 129; Sardar Ali Khan v. State Bank of Pakistan 2022 SCMR 1454; Market Committee, Multan v. Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan 2023 SCMR 1683. (c) Constitutional Law ----Equity and fairness in public service—Public authority benefiting from 15 years of continuous, satisfactory service cannot unjustly enrich itself by recovering past salary—Employee not shown to have committed fraud or willful misconduct—Supreme Court held that retrospective recovery was disproportionate, inequitable, and legally untenable—Order for recovery set aside, though dismissal for ineligibility remained intact. (d) Service Law ----Irregular appointment—Termination justified—Recovery not justified—Where appointment is found to be void due to non-fulfillment of eligibility criteria, termination of service is legally sustainable—However, Supreme Court clarified that in absence of deceit or malpractice, recovery of salary already paid for duties actually performed violates settled principles of law and equity. References: Shams ur Rehman v. Military Accountant General, Rawalpindi 2020 SCMR 188; Engineer-in-Chief v. Jalaluddin PLD 1992 SC 207. Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and partially allowed—Impugned judgment set aside to the extent of salary recovery—Dismissal from service maintained.

Summary: (a) Dismissal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000----S. 3---Departmental disciplinary proceedings---Compulsory retirement---Absenteeism and habitual late coming---Scope---Petitioner, a police official, was compulsorily retired from service for habitual tardiness and absence from duty without intimation---Attendance sheets and biometric data revealed repeated violations---Plea of petitioner that he arrived late due to arranging official events found to be self-incriminating, as no formal exemptions were sought---“Out Working” entries were clearly marked in attendance record when petitioner was legitimately out on duty---Biometric records further indicated falsification of presence---Held, that in presence of such overwhelming documentary evidence, no formal inquiry was required under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000---Service Tribunal rightly concluded that petitioner’s conduct warranted disciplinary action---No jurisdictional error or legal infirmity found to justify interference---Leave to appeal refused.Disposition: Petition dismissed; leave to appeal refused.Cited Legislation:• Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, S. 3

Summary: (a) Service Law ----Disciplinary proceedings---Absence from duty without sanction of leave---Punishment of dismissal from service---Scope---Petitioner, a police officer, was dismissed from service due to unauthorized absence from duty for a prolonged period from 07.10.2017 to 28.03.2018 without obtaining sanctioned leave or permission from the competent authority---Petitioner contended that his absence was neither willful nor intentional as he had lost his passport while traveling abroad, preventing his timely return---Held, that government officers, particularly those serving in disciplinary forces, are expected to adhere to rules and regulations governing leave and duty obligations---Absence from duty without sanctioned leave, regardless of reason, carries consequences, and an officer absent from duty does so at his own risk---Disciplinary action was initiated, and the Petitioner was repeatedly served notices at various stages, yet he failed to appear before the competent authorities in departmental proceedings, appeal, and revision petitions---Court held that the Petitioner’s non-appearance and failure to inform the department of his situation reflected a lack of due diligence and professional responsibility, justifying his dismissal from service---No procedural violation was found, and due process was observed---No interference was warranted. Cited Cases: • Tahira Waheed v. Director, Federal Government Educational Institutions (2003 SCMR 1090) • Secretary to Government of the Punjab v. Zakir Ali (2022 SCMR 951) • Fayyaz Hussain v. Executive District Officer (Education) (2023 PLC (CS) 422) • Tasawar Hussain v. Deputy Commissioner (2023 PLC (CS) 69) (b) Service Law ----Willful absence from duty---Requirement of regular inquiry---Scope---Petitioner argued that his dismissal was unlawful as no regular inquiry was conducted before imposing the penalty---Held, that a regular inquiry is not required where absence from duty is an admitted fact and evident from the record---Court reaffirmed that government officers must adhere to the established procedure for obtaining leave, failing which they bear the consequences of unauthorized absence---Willful absence from duty is characterized by failure to report, failure to communicate reasons for absence, and failure to participate in disciplinary proceedings---Where an employee does not avail opportunities to present a defense despite repeated notices, he forfeits his right to challenge disciplinary action based on procedural grounds. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Ali S. Bukhari v. Federation of Pakistan (2008 PLC (CS) 428) (c) Service Law ----Proportionality of punishment---Dismissal from service---Judicial interference in disciplinary penalties---Scope---Petitioner contended that his punishment of dismissal from service was harsh and should be reduced---Held, that the determination of appropriate punishment falls primarily within the jurisdiction of the competent authority and the Punjab Service Tribunal, and the Supreme Court does not interfere unless the penalty is manifestly disproportionate, perverse, or contrary to law---Tribunal’s findings on facts and evidence are final, and the Supreme Court does not reappraise evidence or reassess factual findings in service matters under Article 212(3) of the Constitution---Interference in disciplinary matters is warranted only in cases where the penalty imposed is excessively harsh, arbitrary, or disproportionate to the misconduct proved---No such circumstances existed in the present case to warrant interference. Cited Cases: • Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services v. Nadeem Raza (2023 SCMR 803) • Secretary Revenue Division v. Iftikhar Ahmed Tabassum (PLD 2019 SC 563) • Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services Faisalabad v. Muhammad Zafarullah (2021 SCMR 400) • Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Nargis Jamal (2022 SCMR 2114) (d) Constitutional Law ----Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution---Substantial question of law of public importance---Scope---Petitioner failed to point out any substantial question of law of public importance that would justify Supreme Court's interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution---Court reiterated that a case qualifies under Article 212(3) when it involves interpretation of laws, rules, or policies affecting a class of civil servants, presents an unresolved legal question, or raises procedural fairness concerns of constitutional significance---Mere factual disputes or private grievances do not meet this threshold---Petition dismissed as no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Cited Cases: • Secretary Revenue Division v. Iftikhar Ahmed Tabassum (PLD 2019 SC 563) Disposition: Petition dismissed; leave refused.

Summary: (a) Service Law: --- Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1999, R.7 --- Departmental inquiry --- Due process and right to a fair trial --- Petitioner, a Junior Clerk, was dismissed from service on charges of inefficiency and corruption after a departmental inquiry. The Service Tribunal upheld the dismissal. Supreme Court examined whether the inquiry was conducted in accordance with due process under Rule 7 of the E&D Rules, 1999. Inquiry report reflected that only the petitioner's response was recorded without recording evidence, conducting cross-examinations, or allowing production of witnesses. Held, fundamental principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard and the right to defend oneself, were violated. The tribunal failed to note these defects, making the inquiry unfair and irregular. Case remanded for de novo inquiry, ensuring compliance with due process requirements. (b) Constitutional Law: --- Art. 10-A --- Right to fair trial --- Applicability to departmental inquiries --- Right to a fair trial under Art. 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, extends to disciplinary proceedings against civil servants. Departmental authorities must provide a full and fair opportunity to contest allegations before imposing major penalties. Held, a fair trial requires examining oral and documentary evidence, permitting cross-examination, and conducting proceedings in an impartial manner. A "discreet inquiry" without full due process cannot be considered a valid departmental inquiry. (c) Natural Justice: --- Audi alteram partem --- Inquiry must be impartial and transparent --- The principles of natural justice dictate that an accused must be given a fair chance to present a defense. In the present case, the Inquiry Officer failed to conduct a regular inquiry, did not summon witnesses, and did not provide the petitioner with an opportunity to produce evidence. Held, failure to adhere to due process rendered the inquiry defective and legally unsustainable. (d) Administrative Law: --- Setting aside dismissal order --- Remand for fresh inquiry --- Since the inquiry proceedings were found to be procedurally flawed, the Supreme Court set aside the dismissal order and remanded the matter for a de novo inquiry within two months. Payment of back benefits was made subject to the outcome of the new inquiry. ----Disposition: Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and dismissal order set aside. Case remanded for de novo inquiry.

Summary: (a) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ----Ss. 2(h)(i), 4(4)(ii)(d) & (e)---Sexual harassment---Definition and elements---Unwelcome sexual advances, physical contact, and sexually charged messages constitute workplace harassment under s. 2(h)(i)---Accused’s repeated touching, sexual comments, late-night calls, and messages such as “practical khidmat ki apni importance hai” coupled with the complainant’s persistent resistance proved an unconsented pattern of sexual behavior---The complainant’s contemporaneous protests (“Stop touching me here and there... You apologized last year...”) and the accused’s subsequent written apology amounted to clear acknowledgment of guilt. (b) Admission and evidentiary value of apology ----Apology as admission---Where accused tenders apology for his actions, it constitutes acknowledgment of misconduct---Applied: *Zaheer Ahmad v. Federal Ombudsman Secretariat for Protection against Harassment at Workplace*, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 839 (para 7)---Held, accused’s multiple written apologies (“I am apologizing last time… I admit my sins… you may award any punishment”) constitute confession and conclusive proof of harassment. (c) Cross-examination and procedural fairness ----S. 4(2)---Right to defend---Accused repeatedly avoided cross-examination despite multiple opportunities; his right was closed after deliberate non-compliance---Representation against the closure order was dismissed by the President of Pakistan---Held, no violation of natural justice; accused had fair opportunity but chose not to exercise it. (d) Maintainability---Jurisdiction of FOSPAH after failed institutional inquiry ----S. 6 & 8---Complaint before FOSPAH maintainable when departmental committee fails to complete inquiry or is not trusted by the complainant---Accused’s objection to jurisdiction already decided on 26.10.2023 and unchallenged, thus attaining finality---Participation in proceedings estops accused from raising maintainability at final stage. (e) Burden of proof and credibility of evidence ----Quasi-judicial proceedings---Standard of proof is preponderance of probability---Complainant’s affidavit, corroborated by her daughter’s statement, detailed contemporaneous messages, and absence of rebuttal evidence by the accused, conclusively established harassment---Accused’s defence of “consensual relationship” unsupported by record; no counter-messages, disciplinary inquiry, or independent witness produced---Held, defence rejected. (f) Workplace integrity and abuse of authority ----Abuse of official position---Accused, being Head of Department, used his position to coerce the complainant, cause mental trauma, and threaten her professional security---Such conduct violated the complainant’s dignity and sanctity of workplace guaranteed under the Act. Cited Case: • *Zaheer Ahmad v. Federal Ombudsman Secretariat for Protection against Harassment at Workplace*, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 839 (para 7). (g) Disposition — Complaint allowed. Accused found guilty of sexual harassment. Major penalty of dismissal from service imposed under s. 4(4)(ii)(d), along with fine of Rs. 1,000,000/- under s. 4(4)(ii)(e); Rs. 800,000/- to be paid to complainant as compensation and Rs. 200,000/- to be deposited in state treasury. Competent Authority at FUUAST directed to implement penalties and submit compliance report to FOSPAH by 05.12.2024.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a Deputy Director at the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), filed a writ petition challenging four show cause notices and four notices for personal hearings issued by NAB, which suggested potential dismissal from service as a penalty. The petitioner argued that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the charges, as per a prior inquiry report, and that the show cause notices lacked specific legal violations. NAB's counsel countered that the petitioner had previously filed a similar petition (C.P.No.D-1604/2020) in the Sindh High Court challenging the same initial show cause notice, which was still pending. NAB argued that the petitioner’s failure to disclose this previous filing constituted concealment, making him ineligible for relief in this petition. -----Issues: -----1- Jurisdiction of Constitutional Petition: Can a petitioner challenge show cause notices through a writ petition under constitutional jurisdiction? -----2- Material Concealment: Does the petitioner’s failure to disclose a prior, ongoing petition on the same subject matter justify dismissal of the current writ petition? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Jurisdiction of Constitutional Petition: The Court held that show cause notices are preliminary steps and do not represent adverse orders. The petitioner had the opportunity to provide explanations during personal hearings, so challenging the notices through a writ petition was premature. --Material Concealment: The Court found that the petitioner’s failure to disclose the prior petition constituted material concealment. The Court noted that the petitioner falsely certified the current petition as his first on this subject, contravening principles of judicial transparency and clean hands. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction and dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 100,000. -----Citations/Precedents: Sajjad Ahmad v. Chairman, Capital Development Authority (2016 CLC 896) – Concealment of prior litigation affects writ jurisdiction. Abdur Rashid v. Pakistan (1969 SCMR 141) – Suppression of material facts negates eligibility for writ relief. Ramzan v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (PLD 1968 Lahore 258) – Equitable relief requires full disclosure. Muhammad Saddiq v. Ruqaya Khanum (PLD 2001 Karachi 60) – Emphasizes duty of transparency before the court. Dilawar Hussain v. District Coordination Officer (2004 CLC 324) – Concealing the use of alternative remedies can lead to writ petition dismissal. Shaukat Medicos v. Government of the Punjab (2005 YLR 171) – Concealment of prior suits affects discretionary jurisdiction. Muhammad Akram v. Mansoor Sarwar Khan (2006 CLC 40) – Dismissal for non-disclosure of previous petitions on the same matter. Bashir Ahmed v. Habib (2006 MLD 148) – Incomplete disclosure of relevant litigation history impacts writ eligibility.

Summary: (a) Service Law – Eligibility for Promotion Examination: ----Section Officers Promotional Examination – Requirement of Regular Service----Held, applicants for the Section Officers Promotional Examination (SOPE-2016) must have completed eight years of regular service in BS-11 to BS-16. Service interruptions, including dismissal and reinstatement, affect eligibility. Concealment of dismissal from service renders an application misleading and ineligible. ----Cited Cases: • Vice Chancellor, Agricultural University Peshawar v. Muhammad Shafiq (2024 SCMR 527) • Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Sher Aman (2022 SCMR 406) • Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd. v. Muhammad Samiullah (2021 SCMR 998) (b) Administrative Law – Effect of Misrepresentation in Government Applications: ----Concealment of Dismissal from Service – Consequences for Promotion Eligibility----Held, an applicant who fails to disclose a prior dismissal from service in an official application to the FPSC violates the principles of transparency and good faith. Such concealment justifies rejection of candidature. FPSC acted within its authority by refusing participation in SOPE-2016. ----Cited Cases: • Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Shahzad Iqbal (2021 SCMR 675) • Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Arif (2020 SCMR 507) • Muzaffar Khan v. Government of Pakistan (2013 SCMR 304) (c) Constitutional Law – Judicial Review of FPSC Decisions: ----Scope of Judicial Review – No Interference in Transparent Recruitment Processes----Held, courts will not interfere with FPSC decisions unless there is a manifest illegality. Where an applicant has provided false information regarding service tenure, the FPSC’s rejection of candidature does not warrant judicial intervention. ----Cited Cases: • Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd. v. Muhammad Samiullah (2021 SCMR 998) • Khyber Medical University v. Aimal Khan (PLD 2022 SC 92) (d) Public Service Recruitment – Validity of Departmental Permission Certificates (DPC): ----Withdrawal of DPC Due to Misrepresentation – No Right to Challenge----Held, issuance of a Departmental Permission Certificate (DPC) does not validate an applicant’s eligibility if obtained through concealment of facts. A department has the authority to withdraw a DPC upon discovering misrepresentation. ---Cited Cases: • Deputy Director Finance and Administration FATA v. Dr. Lal Marjan (2022 SCMR 566) • Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Workers Welfare Board v. Raheel Ali Gohar (2020 SCMR 2068) ----Disposition: (i) Appeal dismissed as the appellant did not meet the service requirement for SOPE-2016. (ii) FPSC acted lawfully in rejecting candidature due to concealment of dismissal from service. (iii) Withdrawal of the DPC by NH&MP was justified due to misrepresentation. (iv) The court declines to interfere with FPSC’s decision, emphasizing transparency in public service recruitment.

Summary: Background:This case revolves around a civil petition filed by Raja Tanveer Safdar against Mrs. Tehmina Yasmeen and others. The petition challenges the Lahore High Court's decision, which upheld the orders passed by the Governor of Punjab and the Ombudsperson, Punjab. These orders enforced major penalties on Safdar, including compulsory retirement and forfeiture of past service for two years, based on allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct.----Issues:The legality and appropriateness of the penalties imposed on the petitioner, given the alleged double jeopardy violation.Whether the same set of facts led to multiple penalties under different laws, thus violating the constitutional protection against double jeopardy as provided in Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan.The distinction and interaction between defamation, harassment at the workplace, and misconduct under distinct legal frameworks.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court dismissed the civil petition, affirming the decisions of the lower courts and administrative bodies. It held that the principles of double jeopardy were not applicable as the penalties were imposed under separate laws with different purposes and legal requirements:Defamation under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, was addressed through a civil suit for damages due to harm caused by the petitioner's actions.Harassment at the workplace under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, resulted in compulsory retirement for creating a hostile work environment.Misconduct under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA), led to forfeiture of past service due to false allegations made by the petitioner.The court clarified that these proceedings, although based on interconnected events, did not constitute double jeopardy since they addressed different legal violations and were supported by different sets of evidence and legal standards.----Citations/Precedents:Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan provides protection against double jeopardy.Muhammad Ashraf v. the State elaborates on the principle of double jeopardy, asserting that one cannot be punished twice for the same offense based on the same facts.Various international norms and treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, also recognize the principle of double jeopardy.----Quote: ''(i) The Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 in essence protects the right to dignity at the workplace by ensuring an inclusive, safe and equitable workspace, where respect and acceptability are necessary prerequisites. (ii) Factual aspects of the orders of the Ombudsperson and the Governor as the appellate authority cannot be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction.''

Summary: IssuesWhether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the service appeal on the grounds of non-maintainability and non-prosecution.Whether the change in the seniority list dated 04.06.2003 was lawful and justified.Whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide on matters related to the seniority of judicial officers.Whether the prolonged pendency of the service appeal for 19 years without a decision on merits constituted an injustice.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal?s dismissal of the service appeal for non-maintainability was erroneous. The Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction under Section 3-B of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, to decide matters related to the terms and conditions of service of members of the subordinate judiciary.The Tribunal?s decision to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution also created serious inconvenience for the petitioner, preventing him from seeking the restoration of the appeal.The Court emphasized the importance of the right to appeal and the obligation of appellate forums to explore questions of law and facts thoroughly to ensure justice.The Court highlighted the significant delay of 19 years in deciding the service appeal, stressing the need for timely adjudication of such matters to avoid frustration and despondence among judicial officers.The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal?s impugned order dated 05.03.2022, converted the civil petition into an appeal, and remanded the matter to the Sindh Subordinate Judicial Service Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.----Citations/Precedents:Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973Section 2(bb): Definition of a member of the subordinate judiciarySection 3-B: Establishment of a Tribunal for members of the subordinate judiciarySection 4: Right of appealSection 5: Powers of the TribunalGul Taiz Khan Marwat v. Registrar Peshawar High Court, (PLD 2021 SC 391)Bashir Ahmed Badini, D&SJ & others v. Hon?ble Chairman & Member of Administration Committee and Promotion Committee of Hon?ble High Court of Balochistan, (2022 SCMR 448=2022 PLC (C.S) 610)Homoeo Dr. Asma Noreen Syed v. Government of the Punjab through its Secretary Health, Department & others, (2022 SCMR 1546=2022 PLC (C.S) 1390)