Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan —Arts. 4, 14 & 25 Fundamental rights—Administrative discretion—Scope of proportionality—The principle of proportionality, rooted in Arts. 4, 14, and 25 of the Constitution, requires that any administrative or disciplinary action must strike a fair balance between the harm to an individual’s rights and the legitimate public interest being pursued—It mandates a structured four-stage analysis: (i) legitimacy, (ii) suitability, (iii) necessity, and (iv) proportionality stricto sensu—Tribunals or courts reducing penalties must provide cogent reasoning within this framework—Bare assertions or subjective impressions, absent structured justification, violate constitutional safeguards and the rule of law. (b) Civil Servants—Disciplinary Proceedings —Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 Corruption—Bribery by court staff—Respondent, a court Ahlmad, was found guilty of receiving substantial bribes for securing appointments of individuals in judicial service—Disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with law, and findings of guilt were duly recorded by the Inquiry Officer and endorsed by the competent authority—Tribunal, while confirming guilt, reduced the penalty of dismissal from service to forfeiture of two years of service without structured justification—Held, respondent's role as a record keeper in the judicial system is one of public trust; proven misconduct strikes at the core of institutional credibility and public confidence in courts—Dismissal from service was proportionate to the gravity of the offense and necessary to uphold judicial integrity—Tribunal’s leniency, absent transparent reasoning under the proportionality test, was held to be arbitrary and unsustainable. (c) Service Tribunal Jurisdiction —Standard for interference with disciplinary penalties—Service Tribunals may interfere with penalties only where disproportionality is demonstrated through structured reasoning—Compassionate or subjective assessments are not a valid substitute for rigorous legal analysis—Tribunal’s conclusion that the employee "deserved a second chance" was found to be unsupported by legal standards or balancing of relevant public interest factors. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Nasir Ismail v. Government of Punjab (2025 SCP 67) • Shahida Siddiqa v. Allied Bank Limited (2024 SCMR 92) • Pervaiz Hussain Shah v. Government of Punjab (2024 SCMR 309) • Ijaz Badshah v. Government of Pakistan (2023 SCMR 407) • Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services v. Nadeem Raza (2023 SCMR 803) • Muhammad Sharif v. Inspector General of Police (2021 PLC (C.S.) 762) • Muhammad Iqbal Khan Noori v. NAB (PLD 2021 SC 916) • Sabir Iqbal v. Cantonment Board (PLD 2019 SC 189) • Sakhib Zar v. K-Electric Limited (2024 SCMR 1722) • Bank Mellat v. HM Treasury (No.2) [2013] UKSC 39 • De Freitas v. Ministry of Agriculture [1999] AC 69 Disposition: Appeal allowed—Impugned order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 09.07.2019 set aside—Original order of dismissal from service dated 17.10.2018 restored.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199---National Bank of Pakistan Ordinance (XIX of 1949), Preamble---Disciplinary proceedings---Allegation of misconduct---Employee of National Bank of Pakistan---Inquiry officer finding charge not proved and recommending exoneration---Department nevertheless imposing penalty of degradation in pay scale for one year---Permissibility and legality---Constitutional petition, filing of---Maintainability---Briefly, petitioner was appointed as a cash officer in the National Bank of Pakistan (the “bank”)---He was issued a show-cause notice along with a charge-sheet by the bank---Through a memorandum he was downgraded by one step in his pay scale with immediate effect for a period of one year---Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court through the present writ petition---Held: it was observed by the inquiry officer that the specific accusation concerning the approval of fourteen expense vouchers lacked tangible evidence---Crucially, the petitioner’s alleged signatures on the questioned documents were neither subjected to forensic examination nor verified through any scientific or technical process, as such, there was no conclusive proof establishing the petitioner’s complicity in the alleged misconduct---The inquiry officer further opined that the allegations were ambiguous, speculative, and fraught with doubt---Despite the inquiry’s clear and favorable findings, the respondent bank authorities proceeded to punish the petitioner without any additional or independent justification, thereby undermining the principles of natural justice and fair inquiry---In these circumstances, and in the interest of justice, High Court was of the considered view that the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner employee was arbitrary, unjustified, and without lawful authority---Impugned order having been passed in contravention of due process and contrary to the findings of the inquiry officer was unsustainable in the eyes of law---Employee of NBP could maintain writ petition in relation to his grievance regarding service matters---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199---Constitutional petition, filing of---Maintainability---Employees of National Bank of Pakistan (NBP)---Status and scope for the purpose of filing constitutional petition with regards to service matters---National Bank of Pakistan is a statutory body established under the National Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, 1949, and its employees are employees of a statutory corporation and thus fall within the purview of Art. 199 (5) of the Constitution---National Bank of Pakistan being a statutory corporation is amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High court under Art. 199 of the Constitution and also its employees can avail the recourse to the writ jurisdiction for the redressal of their grievances in respect of their service matters. Muhammad Naeem v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2023 SCMR 301 rel. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199---Constitutional petition---Disciplinary proceedings, challenge to---Inquiry officer recommending exoneration on the ground that no charge stood proved---Department nevertheless imposing penalty of degradation in pay scale for a period of one year---Permissibility---Sanctity and binding effect of inquiry proceedings and the inquiry officer’s findings---Scope---In presence of clear and favorable findings by the inquiry officer the department cannot proceed to punish the employee without any additional or independent justification, otherwise, it would undermine the principles of natural justice and fair inquiry---In such circumstances the disciplinary action taken against an employee would be arbitrary, unjustified and without lawful authority. Sarmad Faraz Abbasi for Petitioner. Malik Khushal Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th May, 2025.

Summary: Civil servants cannot be given liberty to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of High Court in matters relating to terms and conditions of their service in the garb of challenging laws/notifications, in presence of Article 212 of the Constitution and rider "no other adequate remedy" provided in Article 199 of the Constitution. 518STR (Sales Tax Reference)- STR (Sales Tax Reference) 41-24 RUKSHANDA ASAD VS CIR ETC Mr. Justice Asim Hafeez 29- 04- 2025 2025 LHC 2758 2025 PTD 932 [Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench)

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 9-Right to life-Civil service-Promotion-Fair, transparent and merit-based consideration for promotion forms an essential facet of the right to livelihood, and thus, of right to life itself-Where civil servant meets prescribed qualifications and conditions for promotion, lawful and transparent consideration of their case creates a legitimate expectation that such progression has to materialize unless cogent reasons to the contrary exist-Denial or indefinite deferral of such consideration, particularly when based on arbitrary, opaque, or shifting grounds violates such expectation and reduces Constitutional guarantees to mere rhetoric. Federal Service Public Commission v. Shiraz Manzoor 2023 SCMR 2087; Federation of Pakistan v. Misri Ladhani 2023 SCMR 915; Fazali Rehmani v. Chief Minister, N.W.F.P PLD 2008 SC 769; M.A. Rafique v. Managing Director (Power), WAPDA 1990 SCMR 927; Union of India v. Sangram Keshari Nayak (2007) 6 SCC 704; Islamabad Wildlife Management Board v. Metropolitan Corporation PLD 2021 Islamabad 6; Shehla Zia v. WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693; Divisional Superintendent v. Umar Daraz 2023 SCMR 761; Province of Punjab v. Kanwal Rashid 2021 SCMR 730; Pir Imran Sajid v. Managing Director 2015 SCMR 1257; Abdul Wahab v. HBL 2013 SCMR 1383; Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180; Novita Wahyu Setyawati, Dewi Sri Woelandri PG and Muhammad Richo Rianto, 'Career Development, Motivation and Promotion on Employee Performance' (2022) 1 East Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research 1957; Federation of Pakistan v. Jahanzeb 2022 SCMR 2020; Contempt Proceedings Against Chief Secretary, Sindh 2013 SCMR 1752; Mrs. Farkhanda Talat v. Federation of Pakistan 2007 SCMR 886 and Muhammad Nasir Ismail v. Government of Punjab 2005 SCMR 708 rel. (b) Civil service- -Effective role-Principles-Fundamental characteristic of an effective civil service is impartiality and meritocracy-In order to perform such role effectively, civil service must remain free from political interference-Independence, integrity and intellectual honesty of civil service are essential to sustaining rule of law and the Constitution-Allegiance of civil service lies with the Constitution and the law, not with shifting political winds. (c) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)- -S. 4-Punjab Special Education Department (Directorate of Special Education) Service Rules, 2006 [since repealed]-Departmental promotion-Civil bureaucracy-Political influence-Withholding of promotion till amending of service rules-Legality-Civil servant was aggrieved of deferring her promotion till the amendment of Punjab Special Education Department (Directorate of Special Education) Service Rules, 2006-Validity-Arbitrary obstruction, unwarranted delay, capricious interference, unjustified hindrance, manipulation or undue delay in career progression of a civil servant erodes independence and morale of civil bureaucracy, transforming it into an instrument of political patronage, a phenomenon that is antithetical to the ethos of Constitutional democracy and democratic governance-Such interference fosters networks of favoritism and erodes impartiality and credibility of civil service-It is therefore imperative that service laws must be transparent, predictable, and uniformly applied, to ensure equal treatment-Purity of service can be obtained only if promotions are made on merit without favouritism or nepotism-Decision of Departmental Promotion Committee of withholding promotion till such time that Punjab Special Education Department (Directorate of Special Education) Service Rules, 2006 were suitably amended was not sustainable-Supreme Court directed Departmental Promotion Committee to consider the case of civil servant for promotion to the post of Lecturer Physical Education on merits and decide the same within one month from the receipt of this judgment-Appeal was allowed Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Anwar 2025 SCMR 153; Naseem Khan v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 2024 SCMR 1341; Federal Service Public Commission v. Shiraz Manzoor 2023 SCMR 2087; Muhammad Amjad v. D.G. Quetta Development Authority 2022 SCMR 797; Abdul Hameed v. Ministry of Housing and Works PLD 2008 SC 395; Zafar Iqbal v. Director, Secondary Education 2006 SCMR 1427; Muhammad Ishaque v. Government of Punjab 2005 SCMR 980 and Tariq Aziz-ud-Din's case 2010 SCMR 1301 rel.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974—Special Education Department (Directorate) Service Rules, 2006 ----Promotion---Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)---Deferment of promotion due to proposed amendments in Rules—Authority of DPC—Scope Promotion to post of Lecturer Physical Education (BS-17) under 25% quota for PETs/PTIs/DPEs with requisite qualifications could not be withheld on ground that existing rules required amendment—DPC deferred petitioner’s promotion on such basis despite her fulfilling all eligibility conditions including possession of M.A. in Physical Education (1st Division)—Held, DPC has no authority to question or suspend enforceability of valid service rules framed under law—Proposed amendments cannot override binding effect of existing rules—Petitioner had legitimate expectation of being considered for promotion—Decision of DPC declared unlawful, violative of right to be considered for promotion—DPC directed to reconsider petitioner’s promotion within one month. Cited Cases: • Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Anwar 2025 SCMR 153 • Naseem Khan v. Government of KPK 2024 SCMR 1341 • Federal Public Service Commission v. Shiraz Manzoor 2023 SCMR 2087 • Muhammad Amjad v. DG QDA 2022 SCMR 797 • Abdul Hameed v. Ministry of Housing & Works PLD 2008 SC 395 • Muhammad Ishaque v. Govt. of Punjab 2005 SCMR 980 (b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 9---Right to life---Scope and expansion---Inclusion of right to livelihood and career progression Right to life under Art. 9 of Constitution includes right to live with dignity, encompassing right to livelihood and professional advancement—Held, arbitrary deferment or obstruction in promotion amounts to denial of fair opportunity and violates constitutional guarantees—Transparent and merit-based promotion processes essential for realizing right to livelihood—Career stagnation due to unlawful service practices renders constitutional rights hollow and illusory—Legitimate expectation of promotion, once eligibility is met, forms part of constitutional protection under Art. 9. Cited Cases: • Shehla Zia v. WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693 • Pir Imran Sajid v. Managing Director 2015 SCMR 1257 • Abdul Wahab v. HBL 2013 SCMR 1383 • Federation of Pakistan v. Jahanzeb 2022 SCMR 2020 • Mrs. Farkhanda Talat v. Federation of Pakistan 2007 SCMR 886 • Divisional Superintendent v. Umar Daraz 2023 SCMR 761 • Province of Punjab v. Kanwal Rashid 2021 SCMR 730 (c) Civil Service—Public Administration ----Impartiality of civil service—Meritocracy—Effect of political interference Supreme Court highlighted that civil bureaucracy must remain apolitical, professional, and merit-based—Observed that promotion processes must not be delayed arbitrarily or subjected to manipulation based on anticipated rule changes—Civil servants serve the Constitution, not political masters—Undue interference erodes morale, impartiality, and trust in public institutions—Quaid-e-Azam’s directive to civil servants cited: duty is to loyally serve any government formed under constitutional process—Transparent service laws essential to guard against favouritism and ensure equal opportunity. Cited Cases & References: • Muhammad Nasir Ismail v. Government of Punjab 2025 SCP 57 • Tariq Aziz-ud-Din 2010 SCMR 1301 • Quaid-e-Azam’s Address to Civil Officers (Peshawar, 1948) • Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization • Lorne Sossin, Speaking Truth to Power (2005) • E.N. Gladden, An Introduction to Public Administration (1952)

Summary: The process of appointments brought to a definitive end prior to rescission of Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 (omitted on 24.07.2024) would be a past and closed chapter whereas the judgment passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition No.3390/2021 titled General Post Office, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Jalal would be applicable with retrospective effect on the persons whose process of appointments was underway till pronouncement of said judgment (i.e. 18.10.2024). 569Civil Revision- Civil Revision (Against Decree) 1-15 MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ETC VS MUHAMMAD FARRUKH RAUF ETC Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain 10- 04- 2025 2025 LHC 2682

Summary: (a) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--- ----S.O. 2(i) & Sched. Paras.1(b) & 1(e)---Notification No. SO(ERB)5-44/2019/WC-DW-Policy dated 29.01.2021 issued by the Government of Punjab, Services and General Administration Department (Regulations / O&M Wing)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 10A & 25---Permanent employee / workman---Entitlement---Petitioners, undisputedly, were working on daily wages basis with the respondents for several years and, admittedly, had been receiving monthly salaries as per the settled terms and conditions outlined in their appointment letters---During the service of petitioners, no adverse remarks or disciplinary action were reported against them---The nature of their duties was manual, thus, placing them squarely within the protection of labour laws---If the nature of work for which a person is employed is of a permanent nature, then he may become permanent upon the expiry of the period of nine months mentioned in terms of clause (b) of paragraph 1 of the Schedule to Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (‘the Ordinance’), provided that he is covered by the definition of the term "worker" given in S. 2(i) thereof ; but if the work is not of permanent nature and is not likely to last for more than nine months, then he is not covered by the above provision---In the present case, the petitioners had been continuously serving against various posts for several years, albeit with artificial breaks---The duration of their employment far exceeded the nine-months threshold, clearly indicating that their work was of a permanent nature---Pertinently , the respondents did not claim that the petitioners were terminated upon completion of a task, project, or due to the abolition of posts---Pertinently, the Government of Punjab, Services and General Administration Department (Regulations/O&M Wing), issued a Notification No. SO(ERB)5- 44/2019/WC-DW-Policy dated 29.01.2021, clarifying the status of work-charged employees, daily wagers, and contingent paid staff; according to the which (notification) daily wagers who have completed nine months of service may be considered as permanent workmen under S. 1(b) of the Ordinance and were entitled to all rights and benefits afforded/granted to permanent workmen---The continued denial of rights to the petitioners was not only legally untenable but also ethically indefensible---Petitioners had fulfilled all statutory requirements to attain the status of permanent workmen, and the refusal to recognize their lawful status constituted a breach of mandatory legal provisions---Moreover, the failure to follow lawful termination procedures violated both statutory law and fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 4, 10A & 25 of the Constitution---High Court set-aside the impugned judgment passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal declaring the verbal termination of the petitioners to be illegal and unlawful, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners into service as "permanent workmen"---Constitutional petitions were allowed accordingly. Town Administration and another v. Mohammad Khalid and others 2024 SCMR 1852 ref. (b) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--- ----S.Os. 12(2) & 12(3)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 9---Employer dismissing employee---Verbal order---Scope and effect---Perusal of the impugned judgment, showed that while the Appellate Tribunal applied S. 12(2) of Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (‘the Ordinance’) in this case, the court failed to consider the implications of S. 12(3), which mandates that no workman shall be terminated, removed, retrenched, discharged, or dismissed except by a written order explicitly stating the reasons for such action---This omission rendered the findings of the Appellate Tribunal legally flawed and without justification---Termination of service through a verbal order is not only inconsistent with the labour and service laws it also violates the principles of good governance---There is no provision under the labour laws or services verbally without a written order---The termination of service by a verbal order is alien to the labour and service laws of Pakistan and also against the principle of good governance---Termination of service without notice or written order is patently unlawful, as it violates S.12(3) of the Ordinance, which mandates a written order with stated reasons for termination---Termination through verbal orders or silent exclusion is not only procedurally defective but also infringes upon the right to livelihood, a fundamental aspect of Art.9 of the Constitution, which guarantees the security of person---The right to livelihood is an inseparable part of the right to life, and any arbitrary deprivation of this right is unconstitutional---High Court set-aside the impugned judgment passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal declaring the verbal termination of the petitioners to be illegal and unlawful, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners into service as "permanent workmen"---Constitutional petitions were allowed accordingly. The Chairman Agriculture Policy Institute, Ministry of National Food Security and Research, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and another v. Zulqarnian Ali and another 2022 SCMR 636 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 25-A---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) , S.O. 2(i) & Sched. Paras. 1(b) & 1(e)---Regularization of other similarly placed employees---Discrimination---Petitioners had earlier approached this Court via writ petitions, seeking regularization of their services, which were converted into representations and forwarded to the respondents for decision---However, shortly after rejecting the representations, the petitioners were verbally terminated without any notice or written order---Pertinently, several similarly placed daily wage employees had been regularized by the respondents in the light of orders passed by High Court in other constitutional petitions, whereas the petitioners were arbitrarily excluded for grant of said benefit, which amounted to discrimination and violation of the Art.25A of the Constitution---High Court set-aside the impugned judgment passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal declaring the verbal termination of the petitioners to be illegal and unlawful, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners into service as "permanent workmen"---Constitutional petitions were allowed accordingly. (d ) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--- ----S.O. 2(i) & Sched. Paras. 1(b) & 1(e)---Workman, status of---Whether permanent or temporary---Statutory enforcement---Scope---Internal policy/preferences/administrative will of the employers---The Doctrine of equality---Scope---Matter of the status of the petitioners as workmen (i.e. whether they are to be treated as permanent or temporary) is not to be resolved by the internal policy preferences or administrative will of the employers, but rather, it is a matter of statutory interpretation and constitutional enforcement, squarely governed by the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (‘the Ordinance’), which must be adjudicated in the light of both objective legal standards and the constitutional imperatives of equality, fairness, and due process---Where a statutory mandate exists, it overrides and takes precedence over administrative discretion---Clause 1(b) of the Schedule of the Ordinance provides that a permanent workman is one who has completed nine months of service of the work of a permanent nature, coupled with satisfactory conduct---The law confers a legal status to the nature and length of service, and not to the employer's classification or intention---Where a statute confers a right or a particular standing, no executive authority can arbitrarily deny it to the petitioners---The executive has no discretion to deny a right that has crystallized by operation of law---Where the service conditions satisfy the criteria set out in a statute, the resulting status is enforceable as a matter of right---In the present case, the petitioners had continuously served the respondents organization/department for several years in positions that were considered permanent, thereby meeting the legislative criteria under clause 1(b) of the Ordinance---The refusal to grant them the status of permanent workmen, despite their fulfillment of the legal requirements, is not only unlawful but also an act in defiance of legislative intent---The doctrine of equality is not a mere formality; it mandates the uniform application of legal standards to individuals in similar situations---When the State acts, it must do so fairly, justly, and equitably---Discriminatory treatment by a public authority contravenes the provisions of the Constitution---Therefore, the petitioners' exclusion is not merely an instance of administrative arbitrariness, but a constitutional violation that warrants judicial intervention---High Court set-aside the impugned judgment passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal declaring the verbal termination of the petitioners to be illegal and unlawful, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners into service as "permanent workmen"---Constitutional petitions were allowed accordingly. Khawaja Muhammad Arif for Petitioners. Raja Mohsin Abbas for Respondents Nos.3 and 4. Date of hearing: 9th April, 2025.

Summary: For enforcement of terms and conditions of service, the employees of Public Prosecution Department, Punjab being civil servants have to approach the Punjab Service Tribunal instead of invoking constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. 582Crl. Revision 1410594.834-

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 26.10.2022 passed by Sindh Service Tribunal Karachi in Appeal No. 1017 of 2019). Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)--- ----S. 4---Compulsory retirement---Misconduct---Regular inquiry, dispensing of---Petitioner / civil servant assailed dismissal of his appeal by Service Tribunal, whereby order of his compulsory retirement from service was maintained---Plea raised by petitioner / civil servant was that he used to be on outdoor duty---Validity---Plea was in itself an admission on the part of petitioner / civil servant of coming late without intimation, particularly in view of the fact that attendance sheet was placed on record which revealed that whenever he was on outdoor duty it was marked as "Out Working"---In the order in question it had been discussed as to how he put his attendance in bio-metric record though he was not on duty---Supreme Court declined to interfere in finding of Service Tribunal that documentary evidence was such that there was no need to hold an inquiry under the relevant law i.e. Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Petitioner in person. Suresh Kumar, Additional Advocate General, Sindh and Ms. Lubna Pervez, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th March, 2025.