Summary: (Against the judgment / order dated 09.12.2020 passed by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar in Appeal No. 367 of 2019). Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 10-A---Due process and fair trial---Civil service---Misconduct , allegation of---Departmental inquiry, conducting of---Scope---Right of cross-examination, denial of---Effect---Termination/ removal from service---Scope and effect---Petitioner (Naib Qasid in the Excise and Taxation Department) was terminated following proceedings initiated on an anonymous complaint received against him---In the present case, three witnesses were examined, but concededly, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner/servant to cross-exame such witnesses during the inquiry proceedings to defend the charges or to prove his innocence---Under all Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, either federal or provincial, an infallible and watertight procedure is already provided for conducting departmental inquiries, and sanguine to the philosophy/principle of natural justice and due process of law, a right of cross-examination is recognized as an inalienable and undeniable right---Furthermore, if said valuable right is repudiated, it will amount the strangulation and deprivation of the well-entrenched right of defense, despite this right being provided for in all Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules unequivocally and distinctly---Au fait, prior to appointing an inquiry officer, the competent authority should have ensured, with due diligence, that the person so appointed is familiar with and sentient to the rudimentary rules of inquiry---Primary objective of conducting departmental inquiry is to grasp whether a clear-cut case of misconduct is made out against the accused or not---The guilt or innocence is founded on the end result of the inquiry---In a regular inquiry, it is a precondition that an even-handed and fair opportunity should be provided to the accused and if any witness is examined against him then a fair opportunity should also be afforded to cross-examine the witnesses---In a departmental inquiry on the charges of misconduct, the standard of proof is that of balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence---Where any authority regulates and performs its affairs which requires the compliance of the principles of natural justice then it should have been adhered to inflexibly---Supreme Court set-aside the removal from service order of the petitioner, remanding the matter to the competent authority to conduct a de novo inquiry into the allegations of misconduct after providing ample opportunity of defence to the petitioner---Civil petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed accordingly. Federation of Pakistan through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue FBR House, Islamabad and others v. Zahid Malik 2023 SCMR 603 and Ghulam Murtaza Sheikh and another v. The Chief Minister, Sindh and others 2024 SCMR 1757 ref. Ahmad Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Zahid Yousaf, Advocate-on-Record along with Muhammad Shoaib, Superintendent for Respondents. Date of hearing: 1st July, 2025.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ---- Art. 10-A --- Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 2011 --- Departmental Inquiry --- Natural Justice --- Cross-Examination --- Maintainability --- This Civil Petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 09.12.2020, passed by learned Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar, in service appeal No.367/2019 --- According to facts narrated by petitioner, he was appointed as Naib Qasid in Excise & Taxation Department, D.I.Khan in year 2011 --- Anonymous complaint was received against him to respondent No.2 wherein some allegations were levelled against him, therefore, Inquiry Officer was directed to conduct inquiry and submit report within three days --- However, inquiry was completed after five months --- Ultimately, petitioner was exonerated from allegations of anonymous complaint, but his salary was stopped, therefore, he filed writ petition in Peshawar High Court and vide Order dated 28.11.2017, directions were issued to department to release salaries of petitioner --- Out of vengeance, Excise & Taxation Officer seized attendance register and stopped petitioner from marking his attendance so as to create false case of absence --- Consequently, respondent No.3, vide letter No.629/DD dated 10.10.2017, called for explanation from petitioner on accusation of absence from duty since 03.10.2017, despite fact that petitioner was performing his official duties --- Once again, Inquiry Officer was called upon to conduct inquiry against petitioner and report was submitted, and vide order dated 08.11.2018, petitioner was removed from service based on biased inquiry --- Departmental Appeal was preferred, and after lapse of stipulated time, petitioner filed appeal before Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 09.12.2020 --- Learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner was removed from service under provisions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 2011, but inquiry and other departmental proceedings were not conducted under aforesaid Rules --- He further argued that neither any statement of witness was recorded in presence of petitioner, nor any opportunity of cross-examining was afforded to him, however, learned Tribunal failed to comprehend this pivotal aspect of case which resulted in grave miscarriage of justice --- It was further averred that absence of petitioner ensued because he was not allowed to mark his attendance by Excise & Taxation Officer --- Learned AOR of respondents argued that anonymous complaint was received against petitioner, therefore, inquiry was conducted against him, but he was exonerated from charges and no punishment was awarded to him --- Subsequently, petitioner was wilfully absent from his official duty --- Therefore, on chargers of wilful absence, inquiry was again conducted and he was removed from service after due compliance of all requisite legal formalities --- Court held that what is reflected from record is that petitioner was issued show cause notice on alleged wilful absence from duty w.e.f. 30.10.2017 to 24.10.2018 --- Though inquiry was conducted into allegations of misconduct and at least three witnesses, i.e., Ashiq Hussain (Naib Qasid), Khan Afzal (Driver), and Abdul Hameed (ASI, Excise and Taxation Office), were examined, but it is not reflected from minutiae of inquiry report whether any opportunity was afforded to petitioner for cross-examining such witnesses during inquiry proceedings, to defend charges or to prove his innocence --- When we confronted this aspect to learned counsel for respondents who was assisted by Mr. Shoaib Muhammad, Superintendent, he fairly conceded that no such opportunity was provided to petitioner during course of departmental inquiry --- Court held that main purpose of issuing show cause notice to any delinquent is to provide him fair and reasonable opportunity to offer explanation against charges of misconduct reported or noted against him --- Obviously, if reply to show cause notice is not found satisfactory, employer/management/competent authority may decide to hold inquiry into allegations and may also appoint inquiry officer or constitute inquiry committee to conduct inquiry against wrongdoer, and after completion of inquiry proceedings, submit report to competent authority for necessary action in accordance with law --- Court held that we are mindful that under all Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, either federal or provincial, infallible and watertight procedure is already provided for conducting departmental inquiries, and sanguine to philosophy/principle of natural justice and due process of law, right of cross-examination is recognized as inalienable and undeniable right --- Furthermore, if this valuable right is repudiated, it will amount strangulation and deprivation of well-entrenched right of defense, despite this right being provided for in all Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules unequivocally and distinctly --- Court held that prior to appointing inquiry officer, competent authority should have ensured, with due diligence, that person so appointed is familiar with and sentient to rudimentary rules of inquiry --- Sometimes, it seems to us beyond any shadow of doubt that lapses or glitches are committed deliberately in departmental inquiries to provide edge or periphery to accused so that if inquiry is turned down on technical defects, beneficiary will be no other than person accused of such lapses or legal flaws in inquiry proceedings --- Court held that inquiry on charges of misconduct is serious matter; whole career or livelihood of employee/civil servant is put on peril --- Therefore, departmental inquiry should have been conducted with proper application of mind and due process and not in haste or in slipshod manner or with sole aim of victimizing accused of misconduct, even if allegations are unproved --- All judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative authorities should carry out their powers with judicious and even-handed approach to ensure that justice is done according to tenor of law and without any violation of principle of natural justice --- It is prime duty of inquiry officer to provide opportunity to accused person for defending himself against charges and when any witness is produced against accused, he should be given opportunity to cross examine such witness in his defence --- This is unfortunately lacking in this case --- Court held that in case of Federation of Pakistan through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue FBR House, Islamabad and others Vs. Zahid Malik (2023 SCMR 603), one of us, speaking for bench, held that primary objective of conducting departmental inquiry is to grasp whether clear-cut case of misconduct is made out against accused or not --- Guilt or innocence is founded on end result of inquiry --- Learned Service Tribunal may observe whether due process of law or right to fair trial was followed or ignored which is fundamental right as envisaged under Article 10-A of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 --- In regular inquiry, it is precondition that even-handed and fair opportunity should be provided to accused and if any witness is examined against him then fair opportunity should also be afforded to cross-examine witnesses --- In departmental inquiry on charges of misconduct, standard of proof is that of balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence --- Where any authority regulates and performs its affairs under statute which requires compliance of principles of natural justice then it should have been adhered to inflexibly --- Court held that in case of Ghulam Murtaza Sheikh and another Vs The Chief Minister, Sindh and others (2024 SCMR 1757), it was held by one of us that fair opportunity of cross-examination metes out opposing party leeway and possibility to accentuate weaknesses or flaws in testimony which is most effective tool to shatter testimony of witnesses to disprove charge or allegations both in civil and criminal matters including in domestic/departmental inquires conducted under labour laws or civil servant laws --- Purpose of conducting inquiries, on one hand, is to fix responsibility of delinquent vis-à-vis charges levelled against him in show cause notice or statement of allegations, but in unison, it also aids and facilitates catching and exposing actual culprit or delinquent --- No evidence which is accusatorial to opposite party would be admissible unless such party is afforded evenhanded opportunity of assessing its exactitudes by cross-examination, which is most essential device to unearth truth --- If elementary principle of law is not contented, then obviously, whole edifice of unwarranted proceedings will fall apart --- Whether evidence is trustworthy or inspires confidence could only be determined with tool and measure of cross-examination --- Possibility cannot be ruled out in inquiry that witness may raise untrue and dishonest allegations due to some animosity against accused which cannot be accepted unless he undergoes test of cross-examination which indeed helps to expose truth and veracity of allegations --- It is legal duty of Service Tribunal to vet whole inquiry report for purposes of fact-finding, including, effect of non-affording right to cross-examine, which is necessary to decide appeals on merits --- Court held that as result of above discussion, this civil petition is converted into appeal and is allowed --- As consequence thereof, removal from service order of petitioner dated 08.11.2018 is set aside and matter is remanded to competent authority to conduct de novo inquiry into allegations of misconduct after providing ample opportunity of defence to petitioner --- Payment of back benefits will be subject to outcome of de novo inquiry --- Inquiry shall be conducted and completed within period of three months and petitioner is also directed to participate in inquiry --- If there is any change in address of petitioner, he will provide his new address to competent authority so that notice of inquiry may be dispatched to him at his current abode, or he can receive notice from office to ensure his appearance and participation before inquiry officer --- Petition was allowed accordingly.

Summary: (Against order dated 23.12.2024 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed in Appeal No. 3450 of 2024). (a) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)--- ----S. 23(i)---Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004, Cl.2(a), Column-7, Sched. I---Consideration for promotion to the posts of Provincial Management Service (PMS) Officers (BS-17) amongst Tehsildars ("Promoted Tehsildars" and "Inducted Tehsildars")---Amendment in the method of recruitment while removing the condition of 5 years' service only for "Promoted Tehsildars"---Process of consideration of cases of promotion of "Promoted Tehsildars" was halted by the Punjab Service Tribunal through its injunctive order---Validity---Promotee Tehsildars' consideration of promotion as PMS Officers could not be indefinitely placed in abeyance---Vacant posts must be filled in accordance with the prescribed method of appointment at the earliest---Process of the promotion could not be halted at the instance of the Inducted Tehsildars for the simple reason that when the Inducted Tehsildars were directly appointed in the year 2022, the notification dated 21.08.2019 had already been issued---Inducted Tehsildars were aware or expected to be aware of their terms and conditions of service to be governed by the Rules of which the amendment made in Sched-I to the Rules through notification dated 21.08.2019 was an integral part---They joined service knowing fully well the adverse effect of the notification on their promotion prospects, thus, unless and until and if at all the amendments brought about in Sched-1 to the Rules through the notification were declared ultra vires by a competent court/tribunal or the said notification was withdrawn on the basis of the Governor reversing the amendment made in the method of promotion of Tehsildars as PMS Officers contained in Sched-I to the Rules, the process of promotion could not be halted---Public sector employment in Pakistan was a significant source of financial stability for many households---Prolonged vacancies not only limit their employment opportunities but also diminish public confidence in government institutions---Practice of routinely leaving posts in public institutions unfilled undermines the very rationale of sanctioned strength---If a post is not needed, it should be abolished through proper procedure; but if it has been duly approved and budgeted, it must be filled without undue delay---Keeping a post vacant hampers the functioning of public institutions and is not conducive to the maintenance of efficiency of administration---Objective of timely promotions of eligible employees in various public institutions can be achieved only by convening of meetings of DPCs---Timely filling of vacant posts is not only an administrative imperative but is essential for maintaining the integrity, efficiency and responsiveness of public institutions---Petition was converted into appeal and was allowed in terms that the process for promotion of Tehsildars as PMS Officers already initiated may continue unless amendment made in the Rules through notification was withdrawn by the Governor. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Hizbullah Khan 2021 SCMR 1281 and Aatika Hina Mushtaq v. Secretary, Special Education, Government of the Punjab C.P.L.A. No. 3116 of 2022 rel. (b) Civil service--- ----Words "Post" and "Vacancy"---Connotation and meaning---"Post" denotes the number of posts in the cadre, whether filled or vacant---"Vacancy" means a vacant post available for appointment, through recruitment/promotion, on the creation of new post(s) or retirement, death or resignation or removal of the incumbent working on the post---In public admi nistration, every post in the organizational hierarchy is created after due deliberation and approval, taking into account the functional requirements of the department, the workload and the efficient delivery of services to the public---Such process ensures that each sanctioned post is essential for the functioning of public institutions---In other words, each sanctioned post reflects a deliberate recognition of a need - whether technical, supervisory, operational, or strategic within the framework of good governance. Importantly, financial allocations are also secured through budgetary processes to ensure that post is funded and resourced. (c) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)--- ----S. 23(i)---Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004, Cl.2(a), Column-7, Sched. I---Amendment made in the Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004, (Rules) made under section 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 (Act)---Scope---Section 23(i) of the Act provides that the Governor, or any person authorized in this behalf, may make such Rules as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of the said Act---Rules in question have been made by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred on him under section 23 of the Act, and so has the amendment in Sched-1 to the said Rules through notification dated 21.08.2019---These Rules have the same force as the provisions of the statute under which they framed---Amendments made in Sched-I to the Rules through the said notification issued by S&GAD, Government of the Punjab, whereby the condition of five years of service as Tehsildar for the Promotee Tehsildars for their consideration for promotion as PMS Officers was done away with, were still in the field till date the notification had not been declared ultra vires the provisions of the Act or the Constitution either by any Court or Tribunal. Ahmed Hassaan v. Government of Punjab 2005 SCMR 186 rel. (d) Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004--- ----Cl. 2(a), Column-7, Sched. I---Annulment of amendment made in Rules by the Governor through notification---Views of executive authority about such Rules through its executive order---Effect---Views that the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, may have expressed in his order dated 18.11.2024 qua the said notification or the directions that he may have issued to the Secretary, Revenue, Government of the Punjab, would not have the effect of the annulment of the said notification dated 21.08.2019---Notification was based on an amendment made in Sched.-I to the Rules by the Governor in exercise of statutory power and it was he alone who could in the exercise of the very same power undo the amendment. Ibad ur Rehman Lodhi, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Junaid Jabbar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Khalid Masood Ghani, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, Muhammad Tahir Riaz, Superintendent and Muhammad Ishaq, Senior Clerk, Board of Revenue, Punjab for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd May, 2025.

Summary: (a) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), S. 23—Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004—Rule-making power—Amendment through notification—Status and enforceability— Governor Punjab lawfully amended Schedule-I to the PMS Rules, 2004 via notification dated 21.08.2019, waiving the condition of five years' service as Tehsildar for promotee officers seeking promotion to PMS (BS-17). Held, rules framed under statutory power under S. 23 have the force of law and remain binding unless declared ultra vires by a competent court or withdrawn by the Governor. Departmental views or tribunal directions do not nullify the operation of such validly enacted rules. Case cited: Ahmad Hassaan v. Govt. of Punjab 2005 SCMR 186 (b) Service law—Promotion—Discrimination—Validity of amendment relaxing criteria for specific class—Legitimate expectations— Petitioners, promotee Tehsildars, were considered for promotion to PMS (BS-17) under amended rules. Inducted Tehsildars objected, alleging discrimination, since amendment removed five-year condition only for promotees. Held, notification was validly issued before induction of respondents; they joined service with knowledge of existing promotion criteria. Promotion process could not be halted in anticipation of rule amendments or pending litigation unless existing notification is struck down or revised. (c) Constitutional petition—Maintainability—Service Tribunal—Challenge to promotion process without challenging underlying rules— Respondents' appeal before Punjab Service Tribunal did not question vires of the 21.08.2019 notification. Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction by suspending promotion process despite not having authority to examine constitutionality of statutory rules. Held, tribunal ought to have awaited outcome of constitutional challenge before High Court; process cannot be stayed indefinitely in absence of legal basis. (d) Administrative law—Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)—Jurisdiction—Effect of pending rule amendments— Held, DPC is not empowered to question legality of service rules nor defer promotions on pretext of contemplated amendments. Rules in force must be implemented; promotions cannot be withheld merely because revision is under consideration. Case cited: • Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Hizbullah Khan 2021 SCMR 1281 • Aatika Hina Mushtaq v. Secretary, Special Education (CPLA No. 3116/2022, judgment dated 21.04.2025) (e) Civil service—Filling of vacant posts—Administrative obligation—Delay—Effect— Over 110 vacant PMS posts could not remain unfilled due to inter-party dispute. Held, public employment is an essential state function; sanctioned posts reflect deliberate institutional need and must be filled promptly unless abolished. Prolonged vacancy undermines public confidence, administrative efficiency, and constitutional guarantees of equal opportunity in public employment. Disposition: Leave granted. Appeal allowed. Promotion process of Tehsildars as PMS Officers to proceed under 2004 Rules as amended by notification dated 21.08.2019, unless duly withdrawn or further amended by the Governor.

Summary: The respondent was admittedly employee of the Police Department as Traffic Assistant and was on probation period when his services were rescinded on the ground that he obtained the employment through concealment of facts. The said orders were set aside by the learned Single Bench and in Intra-Court Appeal, it has been held that Rule 12.21 of the Police Rules, 1934 ("the Rules") bars departmental appeal, however, Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, 1974 ("the Act") allows a civil servant whether regular or probationer, aggrieved by a final order?whether original or appellate?to file an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). Hence, jurisdiction of the Single Bench was barred. Having held that the respondent is a civil servant and that a statutory right of appeal under Section 4 of the Act was available to him against the original order of termination before the Tribunal, we are now constrained to consider whether the present Intra-Court Appeal is itself maintainable in law in terms of the crucial jurisdictional bar contemplated under Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 ("Ordinance"), which expressly excludes the maintainability of an appeal against an order passed by a learned Single Judge in constitutional jurisdiction, where the order impugned before the learned Single Judge arises from proceedings in which a statutory remedy, such as an appeal, was available. In the present case, since the order of termination of services of the respondent under Rule 12.21 of the Rules was appealable under Section 4 of the Act and the respondent nonetheless opted to invoke Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 instead of availing the statutory remedy, the constitutional petition was not maintainable and as a direct consequence thereof, the present Intra-Court Appeal, being a continuation of a procedurally flawed proceeding, is also hit by the bar contained in Section 3(2) of the Ordinance. Accordingly, the instant Intra-Court appeal is held to be not maintainable and is dismissed on that score alone. The appellant-Police Department may avail the alternate remedy. 361Murder Reference 2561404.53-

Summary: (a) Occupational Groups and Services (Probation, Training and Seniority) Rules, 1990-FBR though its Chairman, Islamabad v. Muhammad Junaid Jalil Khan and others Civil Appeals Nos. 248 to 251 of 2018; Tara Chand and others v. Karachi Water and Sewerage Board and others 2005 SCMR 499; Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others 1996 SCMR 1185 and Khawaja Abdul Hameed Nasir and others v. National Bank of Pakistan and others 2003 SCMR 1030 rel. (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)- -S. 5(3)-Execution / implementation of orders passed by Service Tribunal-Jurisdiction-Scope-Petitioner approached High Court for execution / implementation of orders passed by Service Tribunal-Legality-In view of section 5(3) of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 the Service Tribunal can execute its own decisions. Assisted by: Ms. Zainab Bashir, Judicial Law Clerk, Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Summary: General Clauses Act (X of 1897)--- ----S.24-A---Employment---Recruitment to the post of Constable---Appointments approved and finalized by the competent authority---Subsequent direction to re-examine entire recruitment process passed by halting the initial recruitment process---Legality---Brief facts were that the petitioners applied for the posts of Constable (BPS-07) and successfully cleared the written test, interview, and physical assessments, and their names were duly recommended by the recruitment committee and formally approved by the competent authority, however, before issuance of appointment orders, the AIG Police directed re-examination of the entire recruitment process for 180 posts---Issue requiring determination before the High Court was as to “Whether the authorities could lawfully halt and re-open the recruitment process after completion, approval, and recommendation of the petitioners, and without issuing their appointment orders”?---Held: Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 imposed a mandatory obligation upon every executive and public authority to exercise their powers in a reasonable manner, ensuring fairness in decision making---It implied that administrative orders should be speaking, clearly outlining the reasons for the decision, demonstrating application of mind that aligned with the principles of justice and fairness---Admittedly the petitioners had successfully qualified the recruitment process and were duly recommended by the recruitment committee but despite meeting all the requirements no formal appointment letters were issued to them---Instead respondents issued impugned letters calling for a fresh test that too without disclosing any valid reasons that could justify the re-initiation of the entire recruitment process which was found to be arbitrary which could not be allowed to hold field, more particularly when an indefeasible and vested right had been created in favour of the petitioners---Impugned letters were declared null and void, having no legal effect and the respondents were directed to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioners---Constitutional petitions were allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Ltd v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance 2015 SCMR 630 rel. Shah Fahad Hussain Mengal for Petitioner (in C.P.(s) No.205 of 2024). Arbab Nasiruminillah, Addl: A.G. for Respondent (in C.P. No. (s) 205 of 2024). Abdul Wahab Buledi for Petitioner (in C.P. No. (s) 12 of 2025). Arbab Nasiruminillah, Addl: A.G. for Respondent (in C.P. No. (s) 12 of 2025). Muhammad Mujahid Hussain Qaisrani for Petitioner (in C.P. No. (s) 17 of 2025). Arbab Nasiruminillah, Addl: A.G. for Respondent (in C.P. No. (s) 17 of 2025).

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 24.01.2022 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 1698 of 2018). Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006)--- ----Ss.9 & 10---Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4---Dismissal from service---Regular inquiry, non-conducting of---Principles of natural justice---Applicability---Appellant / civil servant was dismissed from service and his appeal was dismissed by Service Tribunal---Validity---Major penalty of dismissal from service cannot be awarded without conducting regular inquiry or providing opportunity of being heard to a civil servant, as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice---Judgment passed by Service Tribunal and orders of lower fora were contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice as no regular inquiry was conducted while imposing major penalty of dismissal from service, whereas, no opportunity of being heard had been provided to appellant / civil servant---Supreme Court directed the authorities to reinstate appellant/ civil servant into service and set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal---Supreme Court remanded the matter to departmental authority to conduct de novo inquiry into the allegations levelled against appellant / civil servant while providing him sufficient opportunity of being heard in terms of sections 9 and 10 of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006---Appeal was allowed. Naseeb Khan v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore and another 2008 SCMR 1369; Raja Muhammad Shahid v. Inspector General of Police and others 2023 SCMR 1135 and Federation of Pakistan through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue FBR House, Islamabad and others v. Zahid Malik 2023 SCMR 603 rel. Petitioner in Person. Khalid Mehmood Ghani, Additional Advocate General Punjab for Respondents. Assisted by Ms. Zainab Bashir, Judicial Law Clerk, Supreme Court of Pakistan. Date of hearing: 19th June, 2025.

Summary: (Against the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Misc. Petition No. 258 of 2025 in Service Appeal No. 460(R) of 2013). (a) Occupational Groups and Services (Probation, Training and Seniority) Rules, 1990--- ----R. 7(4)---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 5(3)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 212(3)---Revised seniority list, challenge to---Retrospective application of seniority Rules---Legality questioned---Revised seniority list issued in violation of an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court---Effect---Judgment in rem---Principle---The central issue in the present case revolved around the determination of inter-se seniority of officers of the Pakistan Customs Service (PCS) belonging to the 24th and 25th Common Training Programs (CTP)---The dispute arose when the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) issued revised seniority lists applying the Occupational Groups and Services (Probation, Training and Seniority Rules, 1990 (the 1990 Rules) (as amended in 2001) retrospectively, which relegated Respondent No.1 to a lower position despite her earlier probation completion and promotion based on CSS merit---The controversy in the present petition was "whether Respondent No. 1 of the 25th CTP could claim the same benefit as extended to officers of the 24th CTP, and whether the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) rightly treated the Supreme Court's prior ruling as a judgment in rem, extending equal relief to similarly placed officers"?---Held: The revised seniority list under the facts and circumstances of the present case showed that the same was issued in violation of the judgment of the FST as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court for the reason that reliance on the Rules 1990, was misplaced as respondents were already promoted as per CSS merit list and their probation period already stood completed---Petitioner department was not justified to cause any delay in the implementation of the judgment of FST dated 30.07.2015 in the case of respondents, particularly when the legal issue involved in present case had already been affirmed by the Supreme Court in an earlier judgment---Facts of the present case were similar to the facts in an earlier Supreme Court judgment involving the same seniority list, therefore, the ratio of the earlier Supreme Court judgment was also attracted in the present case, for the reason that the said judgment was in rem and in view of the large number of judgments of the Supreme Court, the benefit of the judgment in rem could be extended to similarly placed parties---No illegality or error was found in the impugned order passed by the FST---Present petition did not raise a substantial question of law of public importance and warranted no interference by the Supreme Court within the contemplation of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. FBR though its Chairman, Islamabad v. Muhammad Junaid Jalil Khan and others Civil Appeals Nos. 248 to 251 of 2018; Tara Chand and others v. Karachi Water and Sewerage Board and others 2005 SCMR 499; Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others 1996 SCMR 1185 and Khawaja Abdul Hameed Nasir and others v. National Bank of Pakistan and others 2003 SCMR 1030 rel. (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)--- ----S. 5(3)---Execution / implementation of orders passed by Service Tribunal---Jurisdiction---Scope---Petitioner approached High Court for execution / implementation of orders passed by Service Tribunal---Legality---In view of section 5(3) of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 the Service Tribunal can execute its own decisions. Afnan Karim Kundi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Taimoor Aslam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, Sajid ul Hassan SO, Establishment, Munawar Iqbal Du ggal, Additional Advocate General Pakistan and Dr. Nazakat Ali Bhand for Respondents. Assisted by: Ms. Zainab Bashir, Judicial Law Clerk, Supreme Court of Pakistan. Date of hearing: 19th June, 2025. Judgment in personam.--- A judgment determining the rights of B persons inter se in or to any money or property in dispute, but not affecting the status of persons or things or determining any interest in property except between the parties. They include all judgments for money. Rem, Judgment in.--- A legal determination binding not only the parties but all persons. It applies particularly to judgments in Admiralty, declaring the status of a ship, matrimonial causes, grants of probate and administration and condemnation of goods by a competent Court. Normally a judgment binds only those who are parties to it. Such judgments are known as Judgments in personam. Rem, Judgment in.--- A judgment which gives to the successful party possession or declaration of some definite right which right is available against the whole world. Judgment, In personam.--- A judgment in personam or inter parties are those which determine the rights of parties inter se to or in the subject-matter in dispute, whether it be corporeal property of any kind whatever or a liquidated or unliquidated demand, but do not affect the status of either persons or things, or make any disposition of property or declare or determine any interest in it except as between the parties litigant. They include all judgments which are not judgments in rem. A judgment in personam determines the rights of the parties inter se to or in the subject matter in dispute, whether it be corporeal property of any kind whatever or a liquidated or unliquidated demand, but does not affect the status of either persons or things, or make any disposition of property, or declare or determine any interest in it except as between the parties litigant. Judgments in personam include all judgments which are not judgments in rem, but as many judgments in the latter class deal with the status of persons and not of things, the description "Judgment inter parties" is preferable to 'Judgment in personam'. Judgment, In Rem.--- A judgment in rem may be defined as the judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction determining the status of a person or thing, or the disposition of a thing (as distinct from the particular interest in it of a party to the litigation). Apart from the application of the term to persons, it must affect the res in the way of condemnation, forfeiture, declaration of status or title, or order for sale or transfer.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ---- Art. 212(3); Service Tribunals Act, 1973 ---- S. 5(3) Service matters—Execution of Tribunal orders—Jurisdiction of FST to implement own decisions—Petitioner-FBR assailed order of Federal Service Tribunal (FST) dated 06.03.2025 whereby the Tribunal directed implementation of its earlier judgment dated 30.07.2015 concerning seniority of Respondent No.1 (officer of 25th CTP)—Held, FST under S. 5(3) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 has jurisdiction to execute its own orders—Order dated 06.03.2025 was passed in lawful exercise of that jurisdiction upon remand from Islamabad High Court in W.P. No. 2695/2023—Petition dismissed for not raising any substantial question of law of public importance. (b) Civil Servants—Seniority—Seniority once fixed and promotions granted—Subsequent revision impermissible Seniority determination—Application of amended rules retrospectively—Illegality of retrospective application after promotion—Respondent No.1 (25th CTP officer) was relegated in the 2012 seniority list by applying 2001 amendments to the Occupational Groups and Services (Probation, Training and Seniority) Rules, 1990 retrospectively—Held, seniority must be determined in accordance with rules as they existed at the commencement of probation—Respondent had completed probation and was promoted based on CSS merit and earlier gradation list—Revising seniority post-promotion violated established legal principles—Supported by earlier Supreme Court judgment dated 20.02.2019 in Civil Appeals No. 1219 to 1222/2015 and reaffirmed in Civil Appeals No. 248 to 251/2018. (c) Service Law ---- Doctrine of judgment in rem—Equal treatment to similarly placed civil servants Effect of prior Supreme Court decisions in service matters—Applicability to non-litigants—Judgment in rem—Supreme Court held that the principles laid down in the earlier judgments regarding seniority of civil servants were judgments in rem and not limited to parties in personam—Benefit of such judgment can be extended to similarly placed officers (including Respondent No.1 of 25th CTP) even if not expressly mentioned therein—Reliance placed on Tara Chand v. KW&SB (2005 SCMR 499), Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. Secretary Establishment (1996 SCMR 1185), Khawaja Abdul Hameed Nasir v. NBP (2003 SCMR 1030), Govt. of Punjab v. Sameena Parveen (2009 SCMR 1), and WAPDA v. Abdul Ghaffar (2018 SCMR 380)—Principle of equality under Art. 25 of the Constitution reaffirmed. (d) Occupational Groups and Services (Probation, Training and Seniority) Rules, 1990 ---- R. 7(4) Interpretation of Rule 7(4)—Passing of Final Passing Out Examination (FPOE) in first or second attempt—Effect on seniority—Petitioner argued that under unamended R. 7(4), Respondent’s failure to pass FPOE in first attempt affected seniority—Court rejected the contention—Held, promotions and gradation list were issued by department based on CSS merit, and neither the gradation list nor promotions were ever challenged—Revision of seniority after promotions not sustainable. (e) Disposition Petition dismissed—Impugned FST order upheld—Supreme Court found no illegality or jurisdictional defect in the FST’s implementation order—Petition under Art. 212(3) dismissed vide short order dated 19.06.2025—Reasons recorded in present judgment. Cited Cases: Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. Secretary Establishment, 1996 SCMR 1185 Tara Chand v. Karachi Water & Sewerage Board, 2005 SCMR 499 Khawaja Abdul Hameed Nasir v. National Bank of Pakistan, 2003 SCMR 1030 Govt. of Punjab v. Sameena Parveen, 2009 SCMR 1 WAPDA v. Abdul Ghaffar, 2018 SCMR 380