Summary: Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Misconduct and Inefficiency A judicial officer's erroneous exercise of jurisdiction cannot alone justify disciplinary proceedings unless proven with substantive evidence of mala fide intent, gross negligence, or extraneous considerations. Judicial independence and immunity under the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850, must be safeguarded to enable impartial and fearless decision-making. (PLD 2022 SC 7; AIR 1988 SC 1395; AIR 1994 SC 1031) ----- Penalties – Simultaneous Imposition of Minor Penalties Under Rule 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1999, penalties of withholding increment and withholding promotion are to be interpreted disjunctively. Only one of the two penalties can be imposed at a time, as simultaneous imposition disrupts the legislative intent and creates unintended consequences. (1990 SCMR 193; 1999 PTD 2901; AIR 1951 All. 119) ----- Judicial Accountability and Appellate Oversight Judicial officers are accountable for their actions through the appellate system. The evaluation of judicial decisions should occur within judicial appellate or revisional proceedings, not disciplinary inquiries, except in cases where external factors influencing decisions are conclusively established. (2016 PLC (C.S.) 281; PLD 1969 SC 267) ----- Principles of Statutory Interpretation – Disjunctive vs. Conjunctive Meaning The word “or” in statutory provisions generally has a disjunctive meaning, offering alternatives rather than cumulative options. Courts may interpret it conjunctively only to prevent absurdities or achieve legislative intent. This principle is applicable in disciplinary contexts to ensure clarity and fairness in the imposition of penalties. (PLD 2012 SC 1054; PLD 2003 Lahore 593) ----- Outcome: The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal held that the simultaneous imposition of penalties—withholding of one increment and withholding of promotion—contravened the disjunctive interpretation of Rule 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1999. The penalties and the dismissal of the appellant’s review/representation were set aside. The Tribunal emphasized that disciplinary proceedings must not encroach on judicial independence and that no evidence substantiated extraneous considerations against the appellant. ----- Citations and Precedents Cited: Hasnain Raza v. Lahore High Court (PLD 2022 SC 7) Sardar Muhammad Zaman Khan v. M.B. Nishat (PLD 1962 SC 22) Rao Abdul Jabbar Khan v. Registrar, Lahore High Court (2016 PLC (C.S.) 281) Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. PIA (1994 SCMR 2232) Secretary to Government of Punjab v. Shaukat Jameel (1990 SCMR 193) Messrs Pakistan Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (1999 PTD 2901) Ishwar Chand Jain v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana (AIR 1988 SC 1395) K.P. Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1994 SC 1031)

Summary: (a) Civil Servants---Disciplinary Proceedings---Right to Fair Trial: ----Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, Rr. 5, 6 & 7---Departmental Inquiry---Failure to provide cross-examination opportunity---Effect. Petitioners, FIA officers, were compulsorily retired after being found guilty of misconduct and inefficiency under the E&D Rules, 1973 for failing to detect fake Schengen visas. The Supreme Court set aside the departmental proceedings and remanded the matter for a de novo inquiry, holding that the failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination violated the principles of natural justice and due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that cross-examination is a vested right in disciplinary proceedings, as it ensures fair adjudication and prevents arbitrary punishment. The lack of procedural fairness rendered the inquiry defective, requiring a fresh investigation. ----Cited Cases: PLD 2024 SC 581 (Qudrat Ullah v. Additional District Judge, Renala Khurd) PLD 2013 SC 557 (Humayun Hassan v. Arslan Humayun) (b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973: ----Art. 10-A---Right to Fair Trial---Applicability to Departmental Inquiries. The Court reaffirmed that Article 10-A of the Constitution guarantees due process in all legal proceedings, including disciplinary inquiries against civil servants. A flawed inquiry, lacking proper procedural safeguards, such as the right to cross-examine witnesses, violates constitutional guarantees. The failure to provide petitioners with a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves vitiated the entire disciplinary process, necessitating a de novo inquiry to meet constitutional and legal requirements. (c) De Novo Inquiry---Scope and Legal Principles: ----Departmental disciplinary proceedings---When fresh inquiry is warranted. The Supreme Court directed a de novo inquiry, explaining that such proceedings are warranted when: Serious procedural irregularities exist in the original inquiry. Findings are based on conjecture, surmise, or lack evidentiary support. Fundamental rights to due process have been violated. A de novo inquiry ensures that findings are reached independently and lawfully, without relying on prior defective proceedings. (d) Discriminatory Treatment in Departmental Punishments---Violation of Equality: ----Arbitrary differentiation in penalties among similarly placed officials---Effect. The Court took notice of disparity in punishments, where two petitioners were compulsorily retired, one officer faced a lesser penalty, and two senior officers were exonerated despite being part of the same inquiry. The Court held that such inconsistent treatment indicates arbitrariness and requires a fresh evaluation of responsibility in a fair and impartial manner. -----Disposition: Petitions converted into appeals and allowed. The impugned judgment was set aside, and a de novo inquiry was ordered within three months. The punishment of compulsory retirement was made subject to the outcome of the fresh inquiry.

Summary: (On appeal from the judgment dated 29.01.2021 passed by the Islamabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 1834 of 2020). (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 185 (3)---Civil service---Upgradation of posts---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider whether respondents were already granted upgradation by means of Office Memorandum dated 03-10-2019 and grant of upgradation and redesignation of posts was a matter of policy and unless there existed a policy, relief regarding grant of upgradation and redesignation of posts could not be allowed by High Court. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 25---Civil service---Upgradation of post---Discrimination---Upgradation of post and promotion---Distinction---Authorities were aggrieved of direction issued by High Court in favour of respondents/civil servants regarding upgradation and redesignation of posts---Validity---Upgradation of a post is not a vested right, rather it stems from a policy decision intended to benefit a particular set of employees under the scheme embedded in the policy---Upgradation cannot be mixed up with promotion---In case of upgradation, employee continues to hold same post without any change in his duties but he is accorded a higher pay scale in order to mitigate distress associated with stagnation due to lack of progression of promotional avenues---Once Government announces a policy, it is also responsible for enforcing such policy across the board to accord benefit of policy to all those who are eligible under it and may benefit because of it---Court cannot interfere in policy making domain of government but when a widespread and comprehensive policy is announced to benefit employees, it should be implemented bigheartedly and generously, without adding any ifs and buts or discrimination that can stifle main objective of the policy---Similar laws, rules and polices should apply uniformly to all in similar situations, without any discrimination or distinction between one employee and another within the sphere of legislation or policy, provided that their status is substantially equivalent and indistinguishable---Even in cases of classification or categorization, such distinctions must not be arbitrary but should be based on reasons, qualities and characteristics that establish an intelligible differentia for those who have been left out of the arena or who have been excluded with clarity regarding the objective sought to be achieved---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.25---Civil service---Discrimination---Effect---Literal connotation of word "discrimination" essentially refers to different treatment of the same kindor class of persons or behaving less favourably towards them---During the course of employment, discrimination occurs when an employer treats an employee less favourly or disadvantageously than others without any intelligible differentia---Equal treatment with equal opportunity is a corner stone for an egalitarian society, while acts of discrimination in workplace seriously undermine a harmonious working environment and create unrest among employees discriminated who are deprived of perks and privileges. Rashdeen Nawaz Qasuri, Additional Attorney General of Pakistan for Appellants. Ms. Shireen Imran, Advocate Supreme Court and Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 18. Date of hearing: 6th November, 2024. (a) When it is considered necessary to up-grade certain posts in order to rationalize the administrative structure of a Ministry/Division or a Department to make it more effective or to bring about uniformity of pay scales of similar posts in different organizations.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ---Art. 25; Establishment Division Office Memorandum (“OM”) dated 20.01.2001--- Equal treatment and non-discrimination in employment---Upgradation of posts---Employees serving as Control Assistants (BS-12) and Machine Supervisors/Data Control Supervisors (BS-14) in the Naval Headquarters filed a writ petition seeking upgradation of their posts to Data Control Officer (BS-16) to ensure parity with similar posts in other federal departments---High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the upgradation based on the OM dated 20.01.2001, which aimed to rationalize administrative structures and bring uniformity in pay scales across departments. Held, the upgradation policy is designed to mitigate stagnation and ensure equal treatment for employees in similar roles across organizations---Discrimination in the workplace undermines employee harmony and breaches Article 25 of the Constitution, which ensures equal protection of the law---Upgradation cannot be equated with promotion, as it pertains solely to structural and financial adjustments without altering job responsibilities. (b) Civil service law ---Policy on upgradation of posts--- Grant of upgradation is a policy matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the relevant Ministry or Division, subject to the concurrence of the Finance Division and approval of the Establishment Division---High Court held competent to issue directions where administrative policies are not implemented uniformly or create disparities---Once an upgradation policy is approved, it must be implemented in letter and spirit to avoid discrimination and achieve the policy’s objectives. (c) Judicial review ---Scope of judicial intervention in service matters--- Court observed that judicial review is warranted where administrative authorities fail to implement approved policies fairly or equitably---Held, directions for upgradation were necessary to remedy discrimination and ensure equal treatment for employees in identical posts across government departments. (d) Discrimination ---Concept and scope--- Discrimination arises when employees of the same category are treated differently without an intelligible basis, violating the principles of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution---Equal opportunity and uniform implementation of policies are essential for fostering a harmonious and egalitarian workplace environment. ------- Cited Cases: Civil Appeal Nos. 101 and 102-P of 2011 Muhammad Imtiyaz v. Ch. Muhammad Naeem (PLD 2023 SC 306) ------ Disposition: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s directions to upgrade the respondents' posts from BS-12 and BS-14 to BS-16 in light of the upgradation policy, ensuring parity with similar posts in other federal departments.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Career Structure for Health Personnel Scheme Ordinance (VI of 2011)--- ----S. 2(b)---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974), S.4---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4 & 25---Service benefits---Discrimination---Health allowance---Devolved employees---Petitioners / civil servants were aggrieved of the fact that they were not given health allowance which was being given to devolved employees in same department---Appeals filed by petitioners/civil servants were dismissed by Service Tribunal---Validity---Petitioners/civil servants were not in the category of devolved employees who became employees of the Province by virtue of 18th Amendment to the Constitution---Petitioners/civil servants were employees of the Province since the beginning, whereas benefit of allowance was only extended to devolved employees who were covered under section 2 (b) of Career Structure for Health Personnel Scheme Ordinance, 2011---No such law or rule was ever promulgated by Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for extending same benefits to originally employed persons to be treated alike---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Service Tribunal---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Capital Administration and Development Division, Islamabad and others v. Nusrat Tahir and others 2018 PLC (C.S.) 669 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 25---Discrimination---Intelligible differentia, principle of---Applicability---Persons may be classified into groups and such groups may be treated differently if there is a reasonable basis for such difference---Principle of equality does not imply or connote that every law must have universal application to all class of persons---Oscillating or wavering needs of dissimilar sets of persons, which may have little in common, can be treated differently on logical perspicacity---For such classification to meet standards of fairness, self-actualization of two vital constituents must be fulfilled---Classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which may judiciously distinguish persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and second, the differentia must have a logical and sensible nexus with the object sought to be achieved---Expression "intelligible differentia" insinuates an act of exodus capable of making sense. Pakcom Limited v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2011 SC 44 rel. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 184(3) & 199---Judicial review---Government policy---Scope---Court under power of judicial review of governmental policy can neither act or represent itself as an appellate authority with the aim of scrutinizing rightness or aptness of a policy nor may it act as an advisor to the executives on matters of policy which they are entitled to formulate---However, judicial review can be sought when a decision-maker fails to observe statutory procedures; misdirects itself in law; exercises a power wrongly; improperly purports to exercise a power that it does not have; or the policy decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it. Federation of Pakistan v. Shuja Sharif 2023 SCMR 129 and Syed Azam Shah v. Federation of Pakistan 2022 SCMR 201 rel. Noor Muhammad Khattak, Advocate Supreme Court and Anis Muhammad Shahzad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Muzammil Khan, Additional Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa along with Qayum Khan, Deputy Director and Abdur Rasheed, Deputy Secretary Finance for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th November, 2024.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ---Arts. 4, 25, & 184(3) Equality before law—Discrimination in granting allowances—Scope and judicial review Petitioners, employees of Special Education Centers under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) Government, sought parity in health allowances granted to devolved employees absorbed under the 18th Amendment. Tribunal dismissed appeals, holding that devolved employees, having federal service origins, were distinct from petitioners who were provincial employees from inception. Petitioners alleged infringement of constitutional rights under Arts. 4 and 25, arguing that their exclusion from allowances constituted discrimination without intelligible differentia. Supreme Court, while acknowledging the principles of equality, held that classification of devolved employees and provincial employees was based on reasonable and objective grounds, connected to service terms defined by the Career Structure for Health Personnel Scheme Ordinance, 2011. Judicial review of policy decisions was limited to ensuring legality and rationality, and no discrimination or illegality was found in extending allowances exclusively to devolved employees. (b) Administration of justice ---Judicial review of policy decisions—Limitations on scope** Supreme Court reiterated that judicial review does not entail substituting or scrutinizing the appropriateness of executive policies unless there is a breach of statutory procedures or manifest unreasonableness. Court upheld that policy decisions made by competent authorities for extending allowances to specific categories of employees did not contravene constitutional provisions or principles of fairness. (c) Service laws—Classification and equality ---Career Structure for Health Personnel Scheme Ordinance, 2011—Terms and conditions of service** Health allowances were extended to employees of federal institutions devolved under the 18th Amendment as per explicit terms of the Ordinance. Petitioners, being provincial employees from inception, were not covered under the Ordinance or subsequent provincial policies extending allowances to devolved employees. Classification of employees into distinct categories with different benefits was upheld as valid under established principles of intelligible differentia and reasonable nexus with legislative objectives. ------ Cited Cases: Federation of Pakistan v. Nusrat Tahir, 2018 PLC (CS) 669 Pakcom Limited v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2011 SC 44 Federation of Pakistan v. Shuja Sharif, 2023 SCMR 129 Syed Azam Shah v. Federation of Pakistan, 2022 SCMR 201 ------ Disposition: Civil petitions dismissed. However, petitioners were granted liberty to file a representation to the KPK Government for addressing alleged disparities, to be decided within three months if submitted.

Summary: (On appeal from the judgment dated 24.06.2019 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 4548 of 2018). (a) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)--- ----S. 8(5)---Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 212(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to check and resolve serious confusion which occurred due to some proof-reading lapses while publishing section 8 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 in law text books by different publishers. (b) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)--- ----S. 8(5)---Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4---Proforma promotion---Wrongly published section---Maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit"---Meaning---Appeal filed by appellant seeking proforma promotion under section 8(5) of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 was dismissed by the Service Tribunal---Validity---Service Tribunal based its judgment on incorrect exposition of law which was result of adverting to a wrongly published gazette notification---Patent and obvious error or oversight on the part of Court in any order or decision, could be reviewed sanguine to legal maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit" meaning that no man should suffer because of the fault of Court or delay in the procedure---There is de rigueur sense of duty in administration of justice that Court and Tribunal should become conscious and cognizant that as a consequence of their mistake, nobody should become victim of injustice and in the event of any injustice or harm suffered because of a mistake of Court, the same should be remedied by making necessary corrections forthwith---Supreme Court set aside judgment passed against appellant/civil servant and matter was remanded to Service Tribunal for decision afresh. Homoeo Dr. Asma Noreen Syed v. Government of the Punjab through its Secretary Health, Department and others 2022 SCMR 1546 = 2022 PLC (C.S) 1390 ref. Appellant in person. Sanaullah Zahid, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for Government of Punjab. Date of hearing: 4th November, 2024.

Summary: Petitioners challenged an advertisement by the Auqaf Department in Islamabad for the recruitment of Khateebs, citing issues with the age limit, regional quotas, and absence of preference for children of former Khateebs. The petitioners argued that the age limit and quotas prescribed in the advertisement conflicted with established laws and constitutional protections. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Age Limit: Whether the upper age limit of 25 years for Khateebs, as prescribed in the advertisement, conflicted with the Auqaf Department's Khateebs & Imams Service Rules, which allowed for an age range of 30-45 years. ----- 2) Provincial Quotas: Whether setting regional quotas for recruitment to Islamabad-based posts was unconstitutional under Article 27 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on residence or place of birth. ----- 3) Preference for Kin: Whether children of former Khateebs had a legitimate right to preferential consideration for Khateeb positions previously held by their parents. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome Age Limit: The court upheld the age limit of 25 years, citing that the criteria set under the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) Auqaf Rules, which incorporated federal Civil Servant Rules, took precedence over the Khateebs & Imams Service Rules. The prescribed age limit was deemed legally valid. Provincial Quotas: The court ruled that quotas for provincial representation in ICT-based positions were unconstitutional, as they contradicted Article 27’s prohibition against discrimination based on residence. Quotas limiting participation in federal posts to residents of particular provinces or regions undermined the constitutional guarantee of a level playing field. Preference for Kin: The court rejected the claim for preferential treatment for children of former Khateebs, stating that public-sector jobs cannot be treated as hereditary. It emphasized the constitutional requirement for equal opportunity, merit-based competition, and the non-hereditary nature of public employment. ----- Citations/Precedents Rizwan Ashraf vs. Federation of Pakistan (2020 PLC (C.S) 605) Khawaja Ahmad Hassaan vs. Government of Punjab (2005 SCMR 186) Nusrat Baig Mirza vs. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1992 Federal Shariat Court 412) Mushtaq Ahmed Mohal vs. Honourable Lahore High Court (1997 SCMR 1043) General Post Office, Islamabad vs. Muhammad Jalal (C.P.L.A. No. 3390 of 2021)

Summary: The petitioner was working as Constable when he applied for the post of Sub-Inspector and was recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission and appointment order dated 03.08.2023 was issued which was later on withdrawn through impugned order dated 30.04.2024 on the ground that an F.I.R. has been registered against him (after filing of his application). The petitioner admittedly was acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction when his application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was accepted and in first departmental inquiry, he was also declared innocent but on the strength of the second departmental inquiry with which the petitioner was not associated, the impugned withdrawal order was taken as valid by the department. Held: The respondent-department seems to have fallen in error inasmuch as when the Court of competent jurisdiction, i.e., Magistrate Section 30, has clearly found that necessary material for commission of alleged offence is not made out from the facts of the case in addition to the fact that complainant of the case was also not interested to prosecute the case, therefore, in such an eventuality, the impugned order is without any lawful basis. Moreover, it has been held that the underlying rationale of the policy of the respondent-department to withdraw appointment as Sub-Inspector from a Constable who is found involved in a criminal act?registration of case, seems to maintain discipline in the force by shunning out such candidates who could potentially be troublesome for the discipline. In the instant case, strangely and ironically enough, the petitioner found to be involved in FIR can perform his duties as a Constable, by remaining part of the force but cannot be offered appointment as Sub-Inspector. Thus, the policy, the underlying rationale and the manner in which it has been implemented in the present case create a paradoxical situation and conflicting position of the respondent-department, the answer to which is absent on the part of the respondent-department. The petitioner could be or could not be troublesome both as Constable and as Sub-Inspector. -----Background: The petitioner was initially appointed as a constable in the police force and later applied for the position of Sub-Inspector. He successfully passed the written examination, interview, and medical test. On 03.08.2023, he was recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) and issued an appointment order. However, during the verification of his antecedents, it was revealed that a criminal case (FIR No. 269/2023) under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) was registered against him. Despite being acquitted of the charges in the criminal case by a competent court, the police department withdrew the petitioner’s appointment on 30.04.2024, based on the FIR. The petitioner challenged the withdrawal, asserting that his acquittal invalidated the department's decision. -----Issues: 1- Whether the withdrawal of the petitioner’s appointment was lawful, given that he was acquitted in the criminal case. -----2- Whether the second departmental inquiry conducted by the respondent-department was justified and conducted in adherence to principles of natural justice. -----3- Whether the respondent-department's policy regarding criminal cases and the withdrawal of appointments is reasonable, considering the petitioner’s fundamental right to livelihood. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Acquittal and Withdrawal of Appointment: The Court ruled that the petitioner had been acquitted by the Magistrate under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) due to lack of evidence. The Court emphasized that the acquittal decision from a competent court held more weight than the FIR and ruled that the withdrawal of his appointment based on the FIR was legally unjustifiable. --Second Inquiry and Natural Justice: The Court noted that although a second inquiry was conducted by the respondent-department, the department failed to provide any reasonable justification for initiating the second inquiry, which appeared to violate the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not informed or involved in the second inquiry, undermining his right to a fair process, as guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan. --Policy and Fundamental Rights: The Court observed that the respondent-department’s policy of withdrawing the appointment due to a criminal case, despite the petitioner’s acquittal and continued service as a constable, created a contradictory and unjust situation. The Court stated that the withdrawal of the Sub-Inspector appointment, after the petitioner had earned it through merit, violated his fundamental right to livelihood, which is protected under the Constitution. The petition was allowed, the withdrawal order was set aside, and the respondent-department was directed to proceed with the petitioner’s appointment as Sub-Inspector in accordance with the law. -----Citations/Precedents: Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. (Acquittal based on insufficient evidence) Pakistan Penal Code, Section 392 (Robbery) Constitution of Pakistan, Article 10-A (Right to a fair trial and principles of natural justice) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Sections on departmental inquiry and acquittal)