Summary: (Against the order dated 27.06.2024 passed in R.A. No. 12 of 2024 and judgment dated 16.05.2024 passed in S.A. No. 41 of 2024 by the Balochistan Service Tribunal, Quetta). (a) Balochistan Civil Servants Act (V of 1974)--- ----S.4---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 10-A & 212 (3)---Restoration in service---Due process of law---Authorities assailed order passed by Service Tribunal restoring civil servant in service---Validity---Civil servant appeared in test and interview and was declared successful---Appointment order was issued to civil servant who joined service accordingly---Civil servant could not be blamed or reproached for committing any illegality or securing job through unfair means, fraud, or misrepresentation---Civil servant was at Serial Number 02 on merit list and was appointed on 08-08-2023, but his appointment order was withdrawn/cancelled on 27-09-2023 without any show cause notice or any opportunity to be heard---Such action was in sheer contravention of Article 10-A of the Constitution and lacked due process of law---Supreme Court declined to interfere in order passed by Service Tribunal---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. (b) Administration of justice--- ----Principles of natural justice---Scope---Such principles require that delinquent should be afforded fair opportunity to converge, explain, and contest claims against him before he is found guilty and condemned---Principles of natural justice and fair-mindedness are grounded in philosophy of affording right of audience before any detrimental action is taken, in tandem with its ensuing constituent that the foundation of any adjudication or order of a quasi-judicial authority, statutory body, or any departmental authority regulated under some law, must be rational and impartial, and decision-maker has an adequate level of decision-making independence---Reasons of decision arrived at should be amply well-defined, just, and understandable---It is incumbent that all judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative authorities should carry out their powers with judicious and evenhanded approach to ensure justice according to the tenor of law and without any violation of the principles of natural justice. Tariq Aziz-ud-Din, Human Rights Cases Nos. 8340, 9504-G, 13936-G, 13635-P and 14306-G to 14309-G of 2009 2011 PLC (C.S.) 1130; Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress AIR 1991 SC 101; Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat 1997 (7) SCC 622; Junaid Wazir v. Superintendent of Police 2024 SCMR 181; Federation of Pakistan v. Zahid Malik 2023 SCMR 603; Usman Ghani v. The Chief Post Master, GPO Karachi 2022 SCMR 745; Capital Development Authority v. Shabir Hussain 2022 SCMR 627; Raja Muhammad Shahid v. The Inspector General of Police 2023 SCMR 1135; Muhammad Yaseen v. Province of Sindh 2024 PLC(C.S.) 111; Government of Balochistan v. Ghulam Rasool 2024 SCMR 1155 and Inspector General of Police, Quetta v. Fida Muhammad 2022 SCMR 1583 rel. (c) Review--- ----Principles---Mere irregularities having no significant effect or impact on the outcome would not be sufficient to warrant review of judgment or order---If anomaly or ambiguity is of such nature so as to transform the course of action from being one in the aid of justice to a process of injustice, then review petition may be instituted for redressal to demonstrate the error, if found floating conspicuously on the surface of the record---Desire of re-hearing of the matter cannot constitute a sufficient ground for grant of review which, by its very nature, cannot be equated with the right or remedy of appeal. Commissioner Inland Revenue Z-III, Corporate Regional Tax Office, Tax House, Karachi v. M/s. MSC Switzerland Geneva and others 2023 SCMR 1011 = 2023 PTD 964 = 2023 SCP 150 rel. M. Ayaz Khan Swati, Additional Advocate General Balochistan for Petitioners (in both cases). Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 4th October, 2024.

Summary: a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 4, 10-A & 3 Fundamental rights---Due process and protection of law---Principles of natural justice in administrative actions. The withdrawal or cancellation of an appointment without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity for hearing is a violation of due process guaranteed under Art. 10-A of the Constitution. Public functionaries must act within their lawful authority and adhere to principles of natural justice to ensure fair treatment and avoid exploitation under Art. 3 of the Constitution. Cited Cases: Tariq Aziz-ud-Din (2011 PLC (C.S.) 1130) Junaid Wazir v. Superintendent of Police (2024 SCMR 181) Usman Ghani v. Chief Post Master, GPO Karachi (2022 SCMR 745) ----- (b) Service Law Cancellation of appointment---Employer’s duty to rectify departmental errors. Where an appointment is made through proper recruitment procedures, any subsequent cancellation of the appointment due to administrative errors or lack of sanctioned posts must follow due process. Employers are obligated to adjust the appointee or rectify errors internally rather than penalize the appointee for faults of the department. Cited Cases: Government of Balochistan v. Ghulam Rasool (2024 SCMR 1155) Capital Development Authority v. Shabir Hussain (2022 SCMR 627) (c) Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 2021 ----Secs. 5-A & 5-C Review jurisdiction---Scope and limitations. The power of review under the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, such as misconstruction of law or misreading of evidence. It does not extend to a rehearing of the case or allow for a reconsideration of conscious decisions made by the Tribunal. Cited Case: Commissioner Inland Revenue Z-III v. M/s MSC Switzerland Geneva (2023 SCMR 1011) ----- (d) Recruitment process Errors in recruitment---Responsibility of the department. Errors in advertising or appointing candidates due to departmental negligence, such as advertising excess posts or mismanaging recruitment, cannot justify withdrawing an appointee’s employment. Departments must prioritize setting internal procedures to prevent recurrence and avoid scapegoating appointees for administrative failures. ----- (e) Service appeals Tribunal’s role in addressing departmental errors---Compensation for affected employees. Tribunals are empowered to reverse unjust cancellations of employment caused by administrative errors, with the condition that back benefits are contingent on determining whether the employee was unemployed during their period out of service.

Summary: Background: Several writ petitions were filed by employees of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP), challenging the composition and regulatory framework of DRAP, as well as certain promotion procedures. Petitioners included Deputy Directors, Federal Inspectors of Drugs, and Assistant Directors, who raised concerns about the legality of DRAP's structure, the validity of its employee regulations, and the absence of specific rules for promotion, seniority, and other employment terms. These employees also challenged the procedure used for appointing and promoting Directors within DRAP, asserting that it violated the governing statute. -----Issues: 1- Whether DRAP’s structure, as defined under the DRAP Act, was consistent with the law. -----2- Whether DRAP's 2015 Service Regulations were ultra vires the DRAP Act due to a lack of Federal Government approval. -----3- Whether the petitioners’ promotion processes, conducted without finalized rules, were valid. -----4- Whether the petitioners, who opted to remain civil servants, could challenge DRAP’s rules and promotion procedures. -----5- Whether DRAP could constitute a Departmental Promotion Board to consider the promotion of Additional Directors to the post of Director. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found that the composition of DRAP and its structure were valid as per the DRAP Act. The Act provided that DRAP would be led by a CEO and Directors appointed by the Federal Government upon recommendations from a Policy Board, though rules detailing employee terms were absent. The court held that the 2015 Service Regulations were valid for DRAP’s employees but noted that these regulations did not replace the requirement for Federal Government-approved rules. Without Federal Cabinet approval, the regulations lacked statutory status, reducing their enforceability. The petitioners’ promotions and related processes were found legally sound. The court ruled that since the employees were aware of the terms under the 2015 Regulations, they were estopped from disputing their validity years after opting to remain civil servants. DRAP was directed to prescribe rules in consultation with the Federal Government within two months, as required under various sections of the DRAP Act. The Departmental Promotion Board’s formation and the promotion process for DRAP Directors were upheld as lawful. -----Citations/Precedents: Mustafa Impex vs. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2016 SC 808): Federal Government powers to be exercised by the Federal Cabinet. Zia Ghafoor Piracha vs. Chairman, BISE, Rawalpindi (2004 SCMR 35): Regulations not approved by the government lack statutory status. Suo Moto Case No.13/2009 (PLD 2011 SC 619): Regulations inconsistent with the parent statute are inoperative. Multiline Associates vs. Ardeshir Cowasjee (PLD 1995 SC 423): Delegated legislation must not conflict with the statute. Principal Cadet College, Kohat vs. Muhammad Shoab Qureshi (PLD 1984 SC 170): Regulations made without government approval have no statutory authority.

Summary: Dr. MUHAMMAD SHAHID HUSSAIN-Respondent (Against the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Appeal No.816 of 2022). Supreme Court Rules, 1980-

Summary: (Appeal against the judgment dated 15.02.2016 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 899 of 2016). Civil service--- ----Departmental appeal, filing of---Limitation---Police official dismissed from service---Departmental appeal filed by police official was rejected by the competent authority for being barred by time, and the said rejection order of the departmental appeal was maintained by the Service Tribunal vide impugned judgment---Validity---When the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner (police official) on 25.11.2010 and the dismissal order was passed on 11.01.2011, the petitioner was behind the bars (in connection with a murder case) and obviously, he was not in a position to diligently pursue and avail the remedy of departmental appeal in accordance with law---Bona fides of the petitioner could not be doubted when he was incarcerated; it was not an easy or comfortable task, rather it was beyond his control, to respond to the show cause notice, which was never served upon him, or to file a departmental appeal against the dismissal order, which was also never served upon him, within the stipulated time---However, when he was released from jail, he immediately filed the departmental appeal which was rejected---Petitioner then approached the Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievance but the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation---In all conscience, neither the overall conduct of the petitioner in pursuing his legal remedies depicted any negligent or reckless conduct nor did it appear that he deliberately failed to file the departmental appeal within time, and nor was any proof presented on the record to demonstrate that the petitioner was served with the show cause notice and dismissal order while he was in jail for him to pursue and avail the remedy of departmental appeal---Departmental appeal could, no doubt, be transmitted by the petitioner through the Jail Superintendent/authority, provided that he received the dismissal order in jail, but in this case when no order was served, the petitioner cannot be declared guilty or solely responsible for the delay in filing of the departmental appeal---On the contrary, he was a victim of circumstances, therefore the (police) department cannot take the refuge of limitation---Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed; as a consequence, thereof, the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to decide the service appeal of the petitioner on merits after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the parties. Tariq Javaid, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Baleegh-uz-Zaman Ch., Additional Advocate General, Punjab for Respondents. Date of hearing: 24th September, 2024.

Summary: (a) Service Law – Dismissal in Absence of Employee:----Show cause notice—Service of dismissal order—Right to appeal—ScopePetitioner, a constable in Punjab Police, was dismissed from service for unauthorized absence while he was incarcerated—Held, that petitioner was not served with the show cause notice or dismissal order while in jail, preventing him from filing a departmental appeal within the prescribed time—Tribunal's refusal to condone delay was unjustified as limitation period could not run against an individual unaware of dismissal—Courts must consider circumstances beyond the control of a dismissed employee in determining whether delay should be condoned—Reliance placed on Muhammad Iqbal v. Secretary Establishment Division 2023 SCMR 1195—Appeal allowed, matter remanded to Tribunal for decision on merits.(b) Limitation in Service Appeals – Equitable Consideration:----Condonation of delay—Judicial discretion—ScopePetitioner’s service appeal dismissed by Tribunal as time-barred—Held, that delay in filing an appeal due to circumstances beyond a petitioner’s control should be viewed with a sympathetic and equitable consideration—Petitioner was incarcerated and had no means to file an appeal within time—Tribunal failed to appreciate that limitation in such cases is a mixed question of law and fact—Courts should adopt a liberal approach in service cases where delay is due to procedural lapses rather than negligence—Reliance placed on Muhammad Nawaz v. Government of Punjab 2022 SCMR 1407—Petition converted into appeal and allowed.(c) Right to Fair Hearing in Service Matters:----Dismissal without due process—Service Tribunal’s duty—ScopePetitioner was dismissed from service through an ex-parte order without being given an opportunity to defend himself—Held, that Service Tribunal failed to perform its duty as a fact-finding forum by not considering whether petitioner was ever served with notice or had an opportunity to appeal—The discretion of courts must be exercised in favor of ensuring justice rather than perpetuating procedural injustice—Reliance placed on Ali Haider v. Federation of Pakistan 2021 SCMR 895—Matter remanded to Tribunal for reconsideration on merits.(d) Case Law References:• Muhammad Iqbal v. Secretary Establishment Division 2023 SCMR 1195• Muhammad Nawaz v. Government of Punjab 2022 SCMR 1407• Ali Haider v. Federation of Pakistan 2021 SCMR 895

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a Constable in the Punjab Police, was issued a show cause notice for absenteeism from duty between November 4, 2010, and January 10, 2011, without leave or permission. The petitioner was incarcerated from August 2010 in relation to a criminal case, which affected his ability to respond to the show cause notice or participate in the departmental proceedings. Despite this, the dismissal order was passed ex-parte on January 11, 2011. The petitioner later filed a departmental appeal after his release, which was rejected as time-barred. The Punjab Service Tribunal upheld the rejection. The petitioner contested this decision, stating that he was unable to respond due to his imprisonment. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner was adequately informed of the show cause notice and dismissal order while incarcerated. -----2- Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s departmental appeal on the grounds of limitation was justified. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court determined that the petitioner’s inability to file an appeal was not due to negligence but due to his imprisonment and lack of access to the necessary documents. The Court emphasized that the dismissal order and show cause notice were not served to the petitioner while he was in jail, which hindered his ability to pursue a departmental appeal within the prescribed period. The Court also noted that delays in filing appeals from jail should be sympathetically considered, given the hardships faced by prisoners. The Court found that the Tribunal had failed to properly evaluate the circumstances and timeline of the petitioner’s case, leading to an unjust dismissal of his appeal. As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the petition, converted it into an appeal, and set aside the Tribunal’s judgment. The matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for a hearing on the merits of the case, with a fair opportunity provided to both parties. -----Citations/Precedents: Lahore High Court, Criminal Appeal No.371/2013 (Acquittal of petitioner) Service Tribunal Jurisprudence on Limitation for Incarcerated Petitioners General Principles on Delay in Appeals for Incarcerated Individuals

Summary: The appointment of Deans in Public Sector Universities is required to be made in accordance with applicable law; and the Circular dated 29.12.2008 issued by Governor Punjab prescribing additional criteria with respect to appointment of Deans cannot be followed unless the same is incorporated in the relevant Statutes or Regulations or Rules of Public Sector University. 963Co- Operative Petition 1993/22 Niagara Mills Pvt Ltd . Vs PCBL . Mr. Justice Asim Hafeez 20- 09- 2024 2024 LHC 3953 PLD 2025 Lahore 79, PLJ 2025 Lahore 371

Summary: (Appeal against the judgment dated 03.06.2016 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.2236 of 2015). Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975--- ----R.4(1)(b)(iv)---Police official---Misconduct, allegation of---Dismissal from service---Ex-parte inquiry---Judgment of Tribunal based on allegations/findings which were never part of the show cause notice---Legality---In the show cause notice the allegation of absence from duty was raised, but based on the same show cause notice, the Tribunal reproduced some other allegations regarding the petitioner's conviction in a criminal case, which allegation was alien to the show cause notice, and no other show cause notice was presented by the parties that indicated any allegation of conviction in a criminal case or requested the petitioner to submit a reply---Departmental proceedings may be initiated on the basis of allegations contained in the show cause notice and not on the allegations which were never part of the show cause notice---Therefore, in all fairness, the departmental action on account of any misconduct should be confined to the allegations mentioned in the show cause notice/statement of allegations, and should not travel beyond its precinct because the accused of misconduct who is petitioner in this case was only liable to answer the allegations communicated to him in the show cause and had no supernatural knowledge to respond to the allegations not known to him---Even the holding of the enquiry was claimed to be a regular one, but it was actually conducted ex-parte without involving the petitioner or providing him any opportunity to defend himself---According to the latest position, the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case while being extended the benefit of doubt by the Trial Court---Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed; consequently, the impugned judgment was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Service Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. Ch. M. Lehrasib Khan Gondal, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Baleegh-uz Zaman Ch., Addl. A.G. Punjab along with Akhtar Ali Mehmood, DSC (Legal) for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd September, 2024.

Summary: ''The appointment of Deans in Public Sector Universities is required to be made in accordance with applicable law; and the Circular dated 29.12.2008 issued by Governor Punjab prescribing additional criteria with respect to appointment of Deans cannot be followed unless the same is incorporated in the relevant Statutes or Regulations or Rules of Public Sector University.'' Background: Three petitions were brought before the court concerning the appointment of Deans at Public Sector Universities (PSU) in Punjab. A circular issued in 2008 by the Governor of Punjab, in his capacity as Chancellor, proposed a multi-factor criterion for appointing Deans at universities. The circular's legality was challenged, with the petitioners arguing that the appointments of Deans at two universities were unlawful and not based on merit. The main issue in the case was whether the circular held any legal authority and if the appointments were made according to law. ----Issues: 1- Does the 2008 circular prescribing criteria for Dean appointments at PSUs have any legal backing? Were the challenged appointments of Deans at the universities done according to the law and statutory provisions? ----2-Does the Governor of Punjab have the authority to prescribe appointment criteria without incorporating it into the universities' statutes or regulations? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Circular's Legal Status: The court held that the 2008 circular lacked legal force because it had not been adopted or incorporated into the relevant statutes, regulations, or rules of the universities. Therefore, it could not serve as a valid criterion for appointments. --Dean Appointments: The court found that the appointments of the Deans in question were made according to the statutes of the universities, which provide that the Dean must be selected from the three most senior professors within the faculty. The court noted that the circular, having no statutory basis, did not invalidate the appointments, which were made under the prevailing laws. --Governor's Authority: The court ruled that while the Governor, as Chancellor, may propose criteria for appointments, such criteria must be incorporated into the statutes or regulations of the university. Since the circular was never formally adopted into the universities’ regulations, it had no legal effect, and the statutory law governing appointments remained valid. As a result: W.P. No. 27179/2023 was allowed, and the 2008 circular was declared void. W.P. Nos. 11917/2023 and 2455/2022 were dismissed, with the appointments upheld as being in accordance with the law. -----Citations/Precedents: Dr. Iqrar Ahmad Khan v. Dr. Muhammad Ashraf and others (2021 SCMR 1509) Dr. Akbar Anjum v. Bahauddin Zakariya University, etc. (2022 LHC 1824) Dr. Munir Khan Khattak v. Chancellor, The University of Agriculture, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 4 others (2017 PLC (C.S.) Note 10)