Summary: [ Maintainability of appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution] The primary question before the Supreme Court is whether an appeal lies to the Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against an order of a tribunal created by a Provincial law, without the proviso to clause (2) of the said Article being made applicable. The Court raised this question to determine the maintainability of the appeal. In the 1962 Constitution, the Court's jurisdiction was outlined in Chapter 5 of Part III. The Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction, and in addition to the jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution, it could also have other jurisdiction as determined by law. However, the present Constitution does not have a similar provision. The Interim Constitution of 1972 placed the Supreme Court in Chapter I of Part VII. It had appellate jurisdiction, and similar to the 1962 Constitution, it could have additional jurisdiction conferred by law. The Interim Constitution reverted to a three-list system similar to the 1956 Constitution, where legislation in relation to the jurisdiction and powers of all courts, except the Supreme Court, was under the federal legislative list. The Provincial legislatures did not have the power to make laws regarding the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court. The present Constitution had two lists, one exclusive to the Federation and another concurrent between the Federation and the Provinces. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction was affected by legislation enacted by Parliament. The Provinces did not have the power to affect or act upon the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. However, there were some apparent exceptions in existing laws, such as the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which allowed appeals to the Supreme Court. The text then discusses the interpretation and application of Article 212 of the present Constitution. It concludes that an appeal to the Supreme Court under clause (3) of Article 212 against a decision of an Administrative Tribunal created by Provincial law is only possible if clause (2) applies to the Tribunal. Clause (2) requires an appropriate resolution by the Provincial Assembly and subsequent Federal legislation in terms of the proviso. If the Provincial Assembly does not follow this process or if Parliament does not enact the necessary legislation, the appeal to the Supreme Court is not maintainable. The text also addresses the establishment of Tribunals in different regions of the country and examines their compatibility with Article 212. It concludes that the appeal to the Supreme Court under clause (3) is not maintainable for the Tribunals established under certain Provincial laws. However, for the Tribunal established by Federal legislation in the Islamabad Capital Territory, the appeal is possible.

Summary: [(1) The punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed after due process of law. The Service Tribunal cannot modify the punishment unless it is found to be unreasonable or contrary to law and reasons for modifying the punishment should be recorded with proper application of mind. (2) The Travel history without leave approval was proved during inquiry through IBMS (Integrated Border Management System)] The appellant argued that the respondent had frequently traveled abroad without obtaining the necessary No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the department. The appellant contended that all proper procedures were followed during the disciplinary proceedings, and the respondent was ultimately penalized with compulsory retirement. The appellant disagreed with the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal's decision to modify the penalty to a reduction in rank from BPS-19 to BPS-18 for a period of four years. The respondent, representing herself, claimed that she had joined the Education Department in 1992 and had been promoted to BS-19 in 2017. She admitted to traveling abroad for training programs but stated that leave was sanctioned with intervals. She argued that the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on her exceeded the recommendations of the inquiry committee. After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court observed that the respondent had traveled abroad without obtaining the necessary approvals or NOCs. The Travel History Report presented in the case confirmed her frequent travel. The Court noted that the respondent had not produced any documentary evidence or NOC to justify her travel. The Tribunal had also expressed concerns about her accelerated promotion to BS-19 despite her frequent travel and holding posts meant for the Management Cadre. The Court concluded that the punishment of compulsory retirement had been imposed after due process and a proper inquiry into the charges of misconduct. The Tribunal's decision to modify the penalty was found to be neither pragmatic nor judicious. It was determined that the competent authority had already taken a lenient view by imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement instead of dismissal. Citing relevant precedents, the Court held that the Tribunal's power to modify penalties must be exercised carefully, judiciously, and with valid and legally sustainable reasons. The Court found that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction in granting relief to the respondent. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and restored the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to the respondent.

Summary: [1) Misconduct- Clause (b) of Section 2 and Section 3 of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. (2) Responsibility of Postmaster in Post Office Manual, Volume-VI, Chapter 8 & General Rule 403. (3) At the time of appraising any act of misconduct and penalty imposed by the management, the Service Tribunal is obligated to reevaluate the evidence produced during inquiry. (4) The concept of deterrent punishment is also discussed] The case revolves around the respondent, who was officiating as Head Postmaster at Kutchery Post Office in Karachi. A fraud in the Savings Bank Accounts was discovered, leading to disciplinary proceedings against the respondent under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The respondent was also indicted in a NAB reference but was acquitted by the Accountability Court. However, the disciplinary proceedings found the respondent guilty of misconduct and he was dismissed from service. The respondent filed an appeal in the Federal Service Tribunal, which allowed his appeal and ordered his reinstatement with back benefits. The appellants then filed an appeal in the Supreme Court challenging the tribunal's judgment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and heard arguments from both sides. The appellants argued that the respondent, as the Head Postmaster, failed to report irregularities and fraud committed by another individual. They claimed that the respondent was guilty of supervisory negligence and breach of trust. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that the procedure followed during the inquiry was flawed and the findings were contradictory. After considering the arguments and reviewing the case record, the Supreme Court found that the respondent was assigned the duties of Head Postmaster and Assistant Postmaster during the relevant period. The court also noted that the respondent admitted to not discharging his duties properly. Based on these findings, the Supreme Court upheld the tribunal's judgment and dismissed the appeal.

Summary: [No provision under the Labour Laws or the Service Laws permitting the employer to terminate the services verbally without a written order containing the explicit reasons or cause of termination. The termination of service by a verbal order is alien to the labour and service laws of this country and also against the principle of good governance which is a process of gauging whether the Government, its departments/institutions and authorities are conducting their affairs lawfully and performing their duties honestly, conscientiously and transparently including their process of decision making in accordance with rules and regulations.2.The verbal termination order is otherwise against the principle of natural justice which turn of phrase was originated from the Roman word ?Jus Naturale?, which means principles and moralities of natural law, justice, equity, and good conscience that, is fervently and exuberantly founded in the judicial conscience.3. It is an elementary rule of law that before taking any adverse action, the affected party must be given a fair opportunity to respond and defend the action. This principle does not lay down any differentiation or inequality between a quasi-judicial function and or an administrative function/action for applying evenly and uniformly to secure justice and prevent miscarriage of justice.4. Before taking any punitive or adverse action, putting to end the services of any employee/workman or civil servant, the precept of fairness and reasonableness commands that an evenhanded opportunity to put forth the defence should be afforded.5. Even in the case of contractual or temporary engagements, the employees should be issued appointment letters in writing with the terms and conditions of engagement and in the case of termination, explicit reasons of termination should be assigned]

Summary: [ 1. The purpose and sagacity of initiating disciplinary proceedings by the employer is to find out and come to a decision whether the charges of misconduct leveled against the delinquent officer/employee are proved or not and in case his guilt is established, what action should be taken against him under the applicable Service laws, Rules and Regulations, which may include the imposition of minor or major penalties in accordance with the fine sense of judgment of the competent Authority/Management. The criminal prosecution is altogether different where the prosecution has to prove the guilt of an accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Both have distinct features and characteristics with regard to the standard of proof. Even an acquittal by criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising disciplinary powers.2. If a departmental proceeding is triggered on the charges of misconduct, this should be concluded promptly and efficiently within a reasonable period of time rather than spoiling or obliterating the very purpose of such action or inquiry with delaying tactics or prolong it unnecessarily till the eve of retirement, then drop it to the benefit of delinquent employee which would annihilate the entire purpose of inquiry.3. No hard and fast rule that in each and every case after issuing show cause notice the regular inquiry should be conducted but if the department wants to dispense with the regularly inquiry there must be some compelling and justiciable reasons assigned in writing.4. The inquiry was dispensed with on the pretext that FIRs were lodged which were not culminated in the conviction of the respondent before show cause, therefore, in the peculiar circumstances, neither inquiry could be dispensed with nor registration of FIRs could relax or absolve the obligation of holding regular inquiry to decide the allegations of misconduct against the respondent]

Summary: The case revolved around allegations that Mian Khan, a Havaldar at the Customs Headquarters, Model Customs Collectorate, had been caught on CCTV receiving a bribe from two passengers while performing his duties at the New Islamabad International Airport. The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal. The petitioners argued that the Federal Service Tribunal had disregarded the clear evidence presented by the CCTV footage, which allegedly showed Khan accepting a bribe. They contended that there was no need for a regular inquiry when the footage provided unambiguous evidence. The petitioners requested the court to set aside the tribunal's judgment. After hearing the arguments and examining the record, the Supreme Court noted that no regular inquiry had been conducted, and the CCTV footage had not been sent for forensic examination to authenticate its genuineness. The court emphasized the importance of forensic examination in establishing the authenticity and integrity of audio or video evidence. It also observed that the passengers who allegedly gave the bribe had not been involved in the departmental proceedings. Ultimately, the court found no grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, refused leave to appeal, and emphasized the need to conduct departmental proceedings diligently and avoid subjecting public servants to unnecessary litigation that could cause physical and mental stress.

Summary: Background:The appeal stems from a judgment by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated July 31, 2019. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal altered the major penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the Respondent in departmental proceedings to "withholding of one increment for one year." The Respondent was ordered to be reinstated into service, with the intervening period treated as leave due.---Issues:Whether the Tribunal erred in modifying the major penalty imposed on the Respondent.Whether the departmental inquiry and subsequent actions were conducted in accordance with the law.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court heard arguments from the Additional Advocate General, Punjab, representing the appellants, and the counsel for the Respondent. After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the court concluded that the departmental inquiry was conducted thoroughly. Independent evidence, including witness statements and CD recordings, supported the allegation of the Respondent receiving a bribe. The appellate authority provided the Respondent an opportunity to defend himself, yet he failed to provide substantial evidence to refute the findings of the inquiry.Despite finding the Respondent guilty, the appellate authority reduced the penalty from dismissal to compulsory retirement, which the court found lenient. The Tribunal's judgment, however, lacked substantive reasoning for concluding the inquiry was defective or for advocating leniency towards the Respondent. The court set aside the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal and reinstated the major penalty of compulsory retirement. The Respondent's appeal was dismissed.---Citations/Precedents:Punjab Police (MO) Rules, 1975

Summary: Background:The Commissioner Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, and another appellant challenged a judgment dated 03.03.2017 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Appeal No.377 of 2014.The respondent, Allah Bakhsh, a Patwari Halqa, was found guilty of transferring government land to private parties, causing significant loss to the government exchequer.The Tribunal converted the penalty of dismissal imposed on the respondent into forfeiture of two years? approved service, considering it harsh.---Issues:Whether the Tribunal's decision to reduce the penalty imposed on the respondent was valid.Whether the respondent's misconduct warranted dismissal from service.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court noted that the respondent admitted to transferring government land to private parties, causing substantial loss to the government exchequer.The Court criticized the Tribunal for taking a lenient view of the respondent's misconduct and reducing the penalty without valid reasoning.It emphasized that government servants involved in fraud or embezzlement of government property must face severe penalties to deter repetition of such offenses.The argument that no loss was ultimately caused to the government or was recovered did not mitigate the seriousness of the respondent's misconduct.Once misconduct is established, the quantum of punishment is at the discretion of the department, unless it is found to be perverse or disproportionate.The Tribunal's order was found to be self-contradictory, excessive, and devoid of reasoning. Therefore, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and restored the order of dismissal against the respondent.

Summary: Background:The respondent, Mamoon Ahmed Malik, was employed as an Assistant (BPS-14) in the Law and Justice Division, Government of Pakistan, on probation.During his probationary period, he remained absent from duty from 05.09.2011 to 02.04.2012, following which his service was terminated.The respondent claimed to have filed a departmental appeal against the termination, which he purportedly sent via courier service. However, the authenticity of the courier receipt was questioned.---Issues:Whether the respondent's absence from duty justified the termination of his service.Whether the respondent's claim of filing a departmental appeal was credible.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court observed that the respondent addressed the departmental appeal directly to the Secretary, Law and Justice Division, instead of following proper channels.The authenticity of the courier receipt attached to the appeal was challenged, as it was found to be unrelated to the dispatch of the departmental appeal.The respondent's conduct amounted to deception, warranting potential disciplinary action.The argument that the respondent's absence was treated as Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) and therefore no further punishment could be imposed was deemed untenable.Previous judgments of the Court established that unauthorized absence from duty during probation could lead to termination of service.As there were no disputed facts regarding the respondent's absence, no regular inquiry was necessary.The Tribunal's judgment, which set aside the termination order and directed the respondent's reinstatement, was found legally flawed and unsustainable.The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's judgment and restoring the termination of the respondent's service.

Summary: Departmental Proceedings – Natural Justice – Right to Inquiry Principle of Natural Justice: It is a fundamental principle that no one shall be condemned unheard. A proper inquiry must be conducted to allow the accused employee to defend against allegations before imposing a major penalty like compulsory retirement. ------ Held: The competent authority failed to provide a fair opportunity for defense by not conducting a full inquiry under Rule 5 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 2011. [PLD 2019 SC 563 (Secretary Revenue Division v. Iftikhar Ahmed Tabbasum)] applied. ------ 2. Show Cause Notice – Dispensation of Inquiry – Justification Requirement for Inquiry: Under Rule 5 of the Efficiency & Discipline Rules, inquiry may only be dispensed with in exceptional circumstances (e.g., plea bargain, security concerns) and must be supported by recorded reasons. ------ Held: Dispensing with the inquiry without adequate reasons or proper documentation invalidates the disciplinary action. Reference: Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 2011, Rule 5. ------ 3. Balance of Probabilities – Standard of Proof in Departmental Inquiries Standard of Proof: In departmental proceedings, allegations must be proved on a balance of probabilities through credible evidence and procedural fairness. Held: A mere show cause notice is insufficient to establish guilt for serious allegations without corroborative evidence. [PLD 1995 SC 66 (Pir Sabir Shah v. Shad Muhammad Khan)] followed. ------ 4. Powers of Competent Authority – Procedural Obligations Disciplinary Powers: The competent authority must judiciously assess allegations and follow due process. Undue haste or circumvention of inquiry undermines the credibility of departmental proceedings. Held: Failure to conduct a fair inquiry results in the invalidation of disciplinary action. [2016 SCMR 2186 (Mian Umar Ikram-ul-Haque v. Dr. Shahida Hasnain)] referred. ------ 5. Jurisdiction of Service Tribunals Exclusive Jurisdiction: Service Tribunals are the highest appellate forum for service matters under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction is limited to cases involving substantial questions of law of public importance. Held: No substantial question of law was raised; hence, leave to appeal was refused. [PLD 2019 SC 563] and [PLD 2013 SC 1 (Air Marshal (Retd.) Asghar Khan v. General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Beg)] applied. ------ 6. Defects in Departmental Proceedings – Consequences Lapses in Procedure: Defective departmental proceedings, especially those violating natural justice, often lead to exoneration of the accused. ------ Held: The Tribunal rightly reinstated the deceased employee with effect from the date of compulsory retirement. [PLD 1988 SC 416 (Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan)] referred. ------ Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Petition and refused leave to appeal. The Service Tribunal’s judgment reinstating the deceased respondent with effect from the date of compulsory retirement was upheld.