Summary: (a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)—Art. 212(3) of the Constitution—Federal Service Tribunal—Jurisdiction—Finality of Tribunal's judgment—Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C.—Maintainability—Doctrine of merger—EffectJudgment of Federal Service Tribunal (FST), directing upgradation of Signal Maintainers (SMRs) in Multan Division to BS-10 to maintain parity with their counterparts in Rawalpindi Division, attained finality after dismissal of civil petitions by Supreme Court. Petitioners subsequently filed an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., challenging implementation of the FST judgment on alleged grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. Supreme Court held that once the FST’s judgment was affirmed by the apex Court, it merged therein and could not be reopened through an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. Furthermore, the application failed to plead specific instances of fraud or misrepresentation, as required under law—Application rightly dismissed—Petition dismissed and leave refused.Cited Cases:• Trading Corporation of Pakistan v. Devan Sugar Mills Ltd. PLD 2018 SC 828• Government of Pakistan v. Qazalbash Waqf 1993 SCMR 1697(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S. 12(2)—Fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction—Pleading requirements—Application without specific averments—Dismissal justifiedApplication under S. 12(2), C.P.C., filed by Pakistan Railways failed to disclose any precise facts or material particulars to demonstrate fraud or misrepresentation in securing the judgment by the respondent. Supreme Court held that bare allegations, generalised claims, or sweeping assertions are insufficient under S. 12(2), which mandates clear, detailed, and specific pleading of the alleged fraud, deception, or jurisdictional defect. Petitioners’ contentions did not challenge the FST’s original judgment, but sought to obstruct its implementation, rendering the application misconceived. Dismissal of the petition warranted.(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----O.VII, R.11—Scope—Non-applicability to post-judgment implementation proceedings—Misuse of CPC to delay execution—CondemnedPetitioners also invoked O.VII, R.11, C.P.C., seeking dismissal of the implementation petition. Supreme Court observed that once a judgment is passed and affirmed, the plaint ceases to be relevant. There was no pending suit at that stage to which O.VII, R.11 could apply. The Court condemned the misuse of procedural provisions of CPC to harass civil servants or delay enforcement of lawful judgments. Legal provisions must not be weaponized to prolong litigation through frivolous or irrelevant applications—No justification found for interference.(d) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)—Nature of jurisdiction—Exclusive forum—Limited applicability of CPC—Purpose of swift adjudication—Undermining legislative intentFederal Service Tribunal is a special forum exercising exclusive appellate jurisdiction in service matters. Supreme Court cautioned against full-scale application of CPC within FST proceedings, as it would defeat the very purpose of creating a specialized, expeditious forum. Delays caused by unnecessary procedural tactics compromise the effectiveness of the Tribunal. Recourse against adverse decisions lies in filing a review before the FST or an appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 212 of the Constitution—No space for repeated litigation on finalised matters.

Summary: A BPS-20 Office is aggrieved his nomination has been superseded by CSB. (a) Constitutional Law — Maintainability of Writ Petition — Bar of Jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution: The bar under Section 4 of the Federal Services Tribunal Act, 1973, does not apply where the dispute pertains to the fitness of a civil servant for promotion, rather than the terms and conditions of service. A civil servant has a fundamental right to fair consideration for promotion, which is distinct from the right to promotion itself. Consequently, the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 is not ousted in such cases. (Orya Maqbool Jan v. Federation of Pakistan, 2014 SCMR 817; Secretary Establishment Division v. Aftab Ahmed Maneka, 2015 SCMR 1006 applied). (b) Right to Fair Consideration for Promotion — Due Process and Article 10A of the Constitution: A civil servant has the right to be considered for promotion in a fair and just manner, which includes the right to confront and rebut any adverse material used against him. Consideration of intelligence agency reports at the CSB meeting without prior notice to the officer and without affording an opportunity to contest the allegations violates the principles of due process and fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution. (I.A. Sherwani v. Government of Pakistan, 1991 SCMR 1041; Tariq Aziz-ud-Din case, 2010 SCMR 1301 followed). (c) Central Selection Board (CSB) — Role in Promotion — Application of Arbitrary Discretion: Under Rule 18(3)(b) of the Civil Servants Promotion Rules, 2019 (CSPR), only 30 marks are allocated to the CSB’s collective judgment, while the remaining 70 marks are based on quantified performance evaluations (PERs and TERs). The CSB exceeded its authority by disregarding the quantification criteria and awarding disproportionate deductions based solely on intelligence reports. The CSB's decision violated the structured framework of the CSPR and constituted an arbitrary exercise of discretion. (Muhammad Zafeer Abbasi v. Government of Pakistan, 2003 PLC (CS) 503 applied). (d) Intelligence Reports in Promotion Decisions — Legality and Evidentiary Value: The use of intelligence reports that are not commissioned under applicable rules, lack verifiable evidence, and are not disclosed to the officer prior to the CSB meeting renders them legally infirm and ultra vires the fundamental rights to due process and information under the Constitution. The introduction of intelligence reports at the final stage of promotion consideration, without prior confrontation or verification, amounts to a denial of natural justice. (PIA v. Nasir Jamal Malik, 2001 SCMR 934; Abdul Hafeez Abbasi v. PIHC, 2002 SCMR 1034 followed). (e) Amendment to the Civil Servants Promotion Rules, 2019 — Validity and Scope of Rule 2(p) and Rule 4(5): The 2022 amendment to the CSPR introduced Rule 2(p) (defining Special Vetting Agency (SVA)) and Rule 4(5) (allowing CSB to consider intelligence reports of SVAs). However, these rules fail to specify the weightage of intelligence reports in the overall promotion criteria and do not provide procedural safeguards for officers to contest such reports. The vagueness of these rules exposes both the CSB and civil servants to arbitrary decisions, lack of transparency, and potential abuse. (f) Confidentiality of Intelligence Reports — Conflict with Fundamental Rights: There is no legal provision in the CSPR that grants confidentiality to intelligence reports used in promotion decisions. Any attempt to keep such reports secret violates the fundamental rights to information (Article 19A) and due process (Article 10A) of the Constitution. Information that adversely affects a person’s career cannot be classified as confidential without affording the affected individual an opportunity to contest it. (g) Failure to Provide a Transparent Promotion Process — Impact on Bureaucracy and Governance: The unfettered reliance on unverifiable intelligence reports in civil servant promotions creates a chilling effect, making officers susceptible to external pressures, political influence, and coercion by intelligence agencies. The lack of procedural safeguards for officers to defend against adverse reports undermines bureaucratic independence and good governance. (Managing Director (Power), WAPDA v. Muhammad Luqman, PLD 2003 SC 175 applied). (h) Remedy and Directions to the Central Selection Board (CSB): The CSB’s decision dated 01.08.2023 superseding the petitioner was set aside, and the immediately next CSB meeting was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s promotion to BPS-21 strictly in accordance with the marking and ranking criteria stipulated in CSPR, without reliance on the intelligence reports that were neither disclosed nor substantiated. -----Disposition: Writ Petition Allowed — Impugned CSB Decision dated 01.08.2023 Set Aside — Petitioner’s Case to be Reconsidered in the Next CSB Meeting in Accordance with CSPR, Excluding Intelligence Reports Not Previously Disclosed or Substantiated.

Summary: (On appeal from the Judgment dated 05.01.2022 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No. 814(R)CS of 2019). Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)--- ----S. 4---Terms and conditions of service---Pay package---Employments of two different creeds---Judgment per incuriam---Respondent/civil servant was employee of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), an autonomous body, who switched his service through Federal Public Service Commission and was appointed as Assistant Director---Respondent/civil servant was aggrieved of disallowing the benefit of pay protection by government---Service Tribunal allowed his appeal on the foothold that when contract employees, who were also non-civil servants, could get their pay-protection vide Finance Division's O.M dated 31-05-2013, then it would be discriminatory not to allow benefit of pay-protection to other non-civil servants---Validity---There was no rationale to compare or equate two different creed of employees within the one and the same employment status/pattern to invoke or bring up equality clause or treating it discriminatory rather than considering grant of pay-protection strictly in accordance with applicable rules and policy---When any decision of Court or Tribunal was found in ignorance or lack of knowledge of a relevant statutory provision or a binding decision of Court of earlier provisions or decisions, it was called a decision per incuriam, i.e., the decision was made in unfamiliarity/ignorance or obliviousness of pertinent statues or precedents as done by Service Tribunal in the present case---Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal resultantly appeal filed by respondent / civil servant was dismissed---Appeal was allowed. Muhammad Azam Chaudhry v. Federation of Pakistan Civil Appeal No. 1158 of 2009; The Ministry of Finance through Secretary Government of Pakistan, Islamabad v. Atiq-ur-Rehman and another C.P. No. 5046 of 2017; Wharton's Law Lexicon Fifteenth Edition; Satrucharla v. Vijayarama (2006) 1 SCC 212 and Justice Khurshid Anwar Bhinder and others v. Federation of Pakistan and another PLD 2010 SC 483 rel. Ch. Aamir Rehman, Additional Attorney General, Aitzaz Alam, S.O. Ministry of Finance, Faraz Ahmad, S.O. Ministry of Finance and Syed B.H.Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. M.D.Shahzad, Advocate Supreme Court for FBR. Ms. Shireen Imran, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1. Date of hearing: 5th December, 2024.

Summary: (a) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973) ----S. 22---Pay protection---Employees of autonomous bodies---Scope---Respondent, initially employed in Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) under Special Pay Scales (SPS), was appointed through proper channel as Assistant Director (Admin) (BS-17) in the Department of Libraries, Ministry of Education (Defunct)---Claim for pay protection was allowed by the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) but challenged by the government on the ground that PAEC employees were not entitled to pay protection under the applicable policy framework---Supreme Court held that employees of autonomous organizations, which do not adopt the Basic Pay Scale (BPS) in totality, are not entitled to pay protection upon appointment in government service---PAEC employees, being under a separate Special Pay Scale (SPS) regime, did not qualify for pay protection under Finance Division’s Office Memorandums (OMs) dated 12.08.2002 and 08.06.2010---Impugned FST judgment set aside accordingly. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Azam Chaudhry v. Federation of Pakistan (C.A. No. 1158 of 2009) • The Ministry of Finance through Secretary, Government of Pakistan v. Atiq-ur-Rehman (C.P. No. 5046 of 2017) • Justice Khurshid Anwar Bhinder v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2010 SC 483) (b) Fundamental Rules & Supplementary Rules (FR&SR) ----F.R.22---Initial substantive pay---Scope and applicability---Under F.R.22, an employee appointed to a new post involving greater responsibilities is entitled to initial pay protection under prescribed conditions---Supreme Court held that F.R.22 applies strictly to civil servants and does not extend to employees of statutory autonomous bodies transitioning to government service unless the autonomous body has adopted the Basic Pay Scale (BPS) scheme in totality---Employees under Special Pay Scales (SPS) or other non-BPS frameworks cannot claim pay protection under F.R.22 or relevant Finance Division policies. (c) Administration of Justice ----Federal Service Tribunal (FST)---Decision per incuriam---Binding precedent under Article 189 of the Constitution---FST had relied on its earlier decision in Muhammad Banaras v. Secretary Finance, which was later challenged in the Supreme Court but dismissed on technical grounds without deciding any legal question---Supreme Court held that FST failed to consider binding precedent from a five-member bench in Muhammad Azam Chaudhry v. Federation of Pakistan, which categorically excluded pay protection for employees of statutory autonomous bodies joining government service---Impugned judgment passed by FST was declared per incuriam as it ignored settled law. (d) Constitutional Law ----Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973---Precedent---Stare decisis---Scope---Supreme Court reiterated that where the Court deliberately settles a question of law, such pronouncement is binding on all other courts in Pakistan under Article 189 of the Constitution---Legal principles established in Muhammad Azam Chaudhry v. Federation of Pakistan and The Ministry of Finance v. Atiq-ur-Rehman were found to be binding and applicable to the present case, rendering the FST's decision erroneous in law.

Summary: (On appeal from the Judgment dated 23.11.2016 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 5720 of 2015). (a) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)--- ----S. 4---Appeal---Object, purpose and scope---Misconduct---Departmental inquiry is to Determine whether a case of misconduct is made out and whether accused is found guilty by inquiry officer/committee---As a fact finding forum, Service Tribunal is obligated to ascertain whether due process of law or right to a fair trial, as envisaged under Article 10A of the Constitution, was followed---Regular inquiry cannot be considered or labeled as regular inquiry unless fair opportunity is provided to defend the charges. (b) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)--- ----S. 4---Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, R. 5---Departmental inquiry---Object, purpose and scope---Misconduct---Proof--- Principle of natural justice---Applicability---Petitioner/civil servant was dismissed from service on the charges of misconduct and his appeal was also dismissed by Service Tribunal---Validity---Principles of natural justice require that delinquent should be afforded fair opportunity to contest charges before he is found guilty---No efforts were made by inquiry officer either intentionally or unintentionally to explore guilt of petitioner/civil servant---Such inquiry report could not be construed as fair and impartial, nor was it commensurate with the procedure provided under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 for conducting an inquiry into allegation of misconduct---Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal and order passed by authorities imposing major punishment of dismissal from service was also set aside---Supreme Court remanded the matter to departmental authorities for conducting a de novo regular inquiry into the same allegation of misconduct jotted down in the charge sheet and provide fair opportunity to petitioner/civil servant to defend the charges, as inquiry proceedings and report were defective---Supreme Court directed the authorities to pass speaking order and convey the same to petitioner/civil servant---Appeal was allowed. Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Syeda B.H. Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Baleegh uz Zaman, Addl. AG, Punjab and Muhammad Wasif, DSP (Legal) Bahawalnagar for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th December, 2024.

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: PITAC being government owned and controlled entity and its Rules and Regulations also framed by the Federal Government, Constitutional Petition in respect of the service matters of PITAC is maintainable. 808Murder Reference 2560736.300-

Summary: (On appeal from the Judgment dated 14.03.2023 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in Constitution Petition No. 2080 of 2022). (a) Civil Service--- ----Recruitment---Duties of Recruitment Committee---Principle---Exercise of recruitment is an onerous and conscientious duty and if it is assigned to a person or committee, they are obligated to conduct the process fairly and squarely and according to the mandate given by recruitment agency/department to recommend suitable candidates for filling up vacant positions/posts advertised for application by interested candidates---Selection/Recruitment Committee cannot travel beyond its mandate---Neither can it subtract any post nor add any post in selection process and it is obligated to adhere to the terms of reference and conduct recruitment process strictly for the sanctioned posts allowed to be included in written test and interview by candidates---Selection Board or Recruitment Committee can only recommend candidates for issuing offer or appointment letters who are strictly selected on merit for the sanctioned posts, without deviating from terms and conditions of advertisement published for the information of general public---Predominant task of Recruitment Committee should be selection of suitable candidates, which is the substratum of a fair, transparent and efficient recruitment process---Key responsibilities of Recruitment Committee are to first determine how many positions have been advertised for inviting applications; to scrutinize all applications for shortlisting; and to examine whether all required antecedents and credentials have been attached and vetted for the purpose of initial shortlisting of applicants; whether applicant joined competitive process and qualified written test, if any such condition is required to be complied with, then to assess marks on merits; and subsequently conduct interview according to the merit list, awarding interview marks---Recruitment Committee may also consider granting additional marks for additional/value-added qualifications or experience as mentioned in the advertisement inviting applications. (b) Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1979--- ----R. 3---Recruitment---Appointment letter, non-issuance of---Recruitment process, annulment of---Petitioner/authorities were aggrieved of direction issued by High Court to issue appointment letters to respondents/candidates who had been recommended for selection by Recruitment Committee---Held, that Recruitment Committee must undertake recruitment process according to conditions outlined by concerned department in consultation with Services and General Administration Department of Balochistan Government---Recruitment Committee was bound to strictly follow the criteria fixed for appointments with required number of posts---Committee was obligated to complete the process and send recommendations without deviating from or departing from benchmarks to achieve the goal---Recruitment process was declared null and void by competent authority, however it did not debar respondents/candidates from participating in competitive process initiated afresh by authorities for appointment to the same required post---All respondents/candidates could apply afresh in response to advertisement published in newspaper inviting applications for vacant situations---Supreme Court set aside the direction issued by High Court on Constitutional petitions filed by respondents/candidates---Appeal was allowed. Uzma Manzoor and others v. Vice-Chancellor Khushal Khan Khattak University, Karak and others 2022 SCMR 694 distinguished. M. Ayaz Swati and Tahir Khattak, Addl. Advocates General, Balochistan for Petitioners. Taimoor Aslam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record along with Ahmad Raza, in person for Respondents Date of hearing: 3rd December, 2024.

Summary: (a) Service Law—Regularization of Contract Employees: ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199; NADRA Regularization Policy, 2012 Regularization of contractual employees—Applicability of policy—Discriminatory treatment—Principle of equality under Article 25. The respondent, a contract employee of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) appointed under the disabled persons quota, was denied regularization solely because his service tenure fell three days short of the required one-year period stipulated under the NADRA Regularization Policy, 2012. The Supreme Court held that once a policy decision for regularization had been taken, it must be applied uniformly without arbitrary exclusions. The Court noted that other employees who similarly fell short of the one-year requirement had been regularized pursuant to previous High Court judgments, which had attained finality. Denial of regularization solely due to a minor shortfall in tenure violated Article 25 of the Constitution, which mandates equal protection of the law. The Court emphasized that a public authority cannot apply its policies in a discriminatory manner when similarly placed employees have been granted relief. (b) Constitutional Jurisdiction—Maintainability of Writ Petitions by Contract Employees: ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199; Chairman NADRA, Islamabad v. Muhammad Ali Shah (2017 SCMR 1979) Contractual employees—Scope of judicial review—Invocation of writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court distinguished the case from Chairman NADRA, Islamabad v. Muhammad Ali Shah (2017 SCMR 1979), clarifying that the respondent was not challenging the terms of the NADRA policy but rather seeking its enforcement. The High Court had correctly assumed jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, as the petitioner was invoking NADRA’s own policy decision for regularization, rather than asserting an independent right to regularization. The Court reaffirmed that contractual employees ordinarily do not have a vested right to regularization, but where a department’s own policy grants such rights, the denial of regularization can be judicially reviewed to prevent arbitrary action. (c) Rights of Disabled Persons—Employment Protections: ----Disabled Persons (Employment & Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981, S. 2(c), (d); United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006; Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Arts. 3, 25 & 38 Employment protections for disabled persons—State’s obligation—Principle of non-discrimination. The Court emphasized that disabled persons require special consideration in employment decisions, particularly where a regularization policy exists. The denial of regularization solely due to a minor technicality, despite the respondent’s satisfactory performance over an extended period, amounted to unfair treatment. The Court referred to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006, which prohibits discrimination in employment and mandates inclusive and accessible work environments. The judgment also cited national legislation, including the Disabled Persons (Employment & Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981, emphasizing the need for fair treatment and employment security for disabled persons. The Court stressed that public functionaries must act in good faith and avoid arbitrary exclusions in matters of employment rights for disabled individuals. (d) Rule of Consistency and Non-Discrimination in Public Employment: ----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Arts. 4 & 25; NWFP Public Service Commission v. Muhammad Arif (2011 SCMR 848); Fida Hussain v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 46) Principle of equal treatment—Rule of consistency—Protection against arbitrary employment decisions. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule of consistency, holding that similarly placed employees cannot be treated differently without a valid justification. The Court observed that several other employees with less than one year of service had been regularized pursuant to earlier judgments, while the respondent was denied the same relief. Arbitrary application of policy amounts to discrimination, which is impermissible under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Court reiterated that public employment decisions must be fair, non-discriminatory, and in accordance with constitutional guarantees. (e) Procedural Objections—Non-Filing of Intra Court Appeal (ICA): ----Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, S. 3; Federal Board of Revenue v. Messrs. Hub Power Company Ltd. (PLD 2023 SC 207); Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd. v. Iqbal Nasir (PLD 2011 SC 132) Filing of an Intra Court Appeal (ICA) as a procedural requirement—Effect of bypassing ICA. The petitioners challenged the maintainability of the High Court’s decision on the ground that NADRA had not filed an Intra Court Appeal (ICA) before directly approaching the Supreme Court. The Court held that while filing an ICA is a rule of practice, it does not oust or abridge the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, particularly when the case had been pending since 2021 and was heard on merits. The Court noted that while an ICA is generally preferred, failure to file one does not necessarily render a petition non-maintainable, especially in exceptional circumstances. ----Disposition: The Supreme Court dismissed the civil petition, finding no illegality or perversity in the High Court’s judgment. Leave to appeal was refused, and NADRA was directed to regularize the respondent’s employment in accordance with its policy.

Summary: (Against judgment dated 28.01.2022 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No. 620(R)CS of 2018). (a) Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973- ----R. 4(b)(iii)---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4---Disciplinary proceedings---Quantum of sentence---Willful absence from service---Converting of major penalty---Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal---Authorities were aggrieved of converting of major penalty of removal from service into compulsory retirement---Validity---Civil servant was absent from duty and authorities laid out sufficient reasons to show why they did not want civil servant to continue with his service, considering that he willfully absented himself, did not obtain clearance before travelling, and started looking for jobs after travelling abroad, all of which the civil servant was unable to sufficiently rebut---Due process was observed and followed by authorities---Where absence from duty was admitted, there was no need to hold regular inquiry---Service Tribunal had no justifiable reason to reduce the punishment from major penalty of removal from service into compulsory retirement on the pretext that the punishment was harsh given that the civil servant had studied abroad and was an asset for Pakistan---Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal as it exceeded its jurisdiction by arbitrary exercise of discretion which was illegal and without lawful authority and restored penalty imposed by authorities---Appeal was allowed. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Nargis Jamal 2023 PLC (C.S.) 283; Deputy Postmaster General, Central Punjab, Lahore v. Habib Ahmad 2021 SCMR 584; Usman Ghani v. The Chief Post Master, GPO Karachi 2022 SCMR 745; Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad v. Allah Bakhsh 2020 SCMR 1418; Tahira Waheed v. Director, Federal Government Educational Institutions 2003 SCMR 1090; Imtiaz Ahmed Lali v. Returning Officer PLD 2008 SC 355; Secretary Education v. Mustamir Khan 2005 SCMR 17; Tasawar Hussain v. Deputy Commissioner District Jhelum 2021 SCMR 1367; Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services v. Muhammad Arif Butt 2021 SCMR 1033 and Lord Woolf, Chief Justice of England and Wales from 2000 to 2005 rel. (b) Administration of justice--- ----Judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously and transparently, based on established principles and sound reasoning. Access to Justice Report 1996 by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales rel. Haseeb Shakoor Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Syed Qamar Hussain Sabzwari, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1. Date of hearing: 27th November, 2024. AYESHA A. MALIK, J.--- This Civil Petition is directed against judgment dated 28.01.2022 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (Tribunal) whereby the appeal filed by the Respondent was allowed.