Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 10-A & 212---Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, Rr. 3(a) & 4(b)(i)---Departmental inquiry against government servant, conducting of---Right of cross-examination, denial of---Right of defence---Scope---Services Tribunal---Powers and responsibilities---The aim of conducting inquiries is not only to determine the responsibility of the individual in question with regard to the charges outlined in the Show Cause Notice(SCN) or statement of allegations, but also to help identify and uncover the true culprit or delinquent---In the present case, it was quite strange that admittedly 138 witnesses were examined but the inquiry officer failed to provide any opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine them---Pertinently, under the civil and criminal law, the examination-in-chief or mere statement of any witness has no legal value or sanctity unless he appears for cross-examination by the other side, which is a most effective device invented to unearth the truth---It is a vested right, which should be safeguarded and made available being fundamental limb of natural justice---Right of proper defence and cross-examination of witnesses by the accused is a vested right---Cross-examination is the highest and most indispensable test known to the law for the discovery of truth---Indeed, the reliability of evidence can only be judged through cross-examination, which is essential to reveal the truth and test the credibility of allegations, especially when possibility cannot be ruled out in the inquiry that a witness may raise untrue and dishonest allegations due to some animosity against the accused, which cannot be accepted unless he undergoes the test of cross-examination, which indeed helps to expose the truth and veracity of allegations---Denying the opportunity of cross-examination of witness is violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial---Main objective of cross-examination is to rigorously scrutinize the witness's testimony, reveal any inconsistencies, uncover potential biases and critically assess the reliability of the evidence presented---Primary purpose of conducting a departmental inquiry is to thoroughly investigate alleged misconduct, ensure accountability, uphold organizational standards and protect the integrity of the institution; it aims to gather relevant facts, assess the situation fairly and determine appropriate actions based on the findings---Primary purpose of a departmental inquiry is to determine whether there is a preliminary case of misconduct against the delinquent officer to justify further action---Question of guilt or innocence depends on the inquiry's findings---Thus, Service Tribunal must assess whether the inquiry was conducted in accordance with due process and the right to a fair trial, which is a fundamental right---Pertinently, the establishment of the Service Tribunal (Tribunal) under Article 212 of the Constitution serves the purpose of adjudicating matters related to the terms and conditions of civil servants---In deciding appeals, the Tribunal functions as a civil court with equivalent powers and bears the responsibility to deliver fair and substantial justice through sound fact-finding---All judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies must exercise their authority impartially and in accordance with the law, respecting the principles of natural justice---Denial of the right to cross-examine during an inquiry is not a minor procedural flaw but a serious error that undermines the foundation of the case of misconduct---In the present case it was the Tribunal’s legal obligation to thoroughly examine the inquiry report, including the consequences of denying cross-examination to fairly decide the appeals on their merits---Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal while remanding the case to the Secretary Establishment to conduct a de-novo inquiry, ensuring that all requirements of a fair trial were met, including providing the petitioner a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses---Petition for leave to appeal was allowed and converted into an appeal and was disposed of accordingly. Federation of Pakistan through Chairman FBR v. Zahid Malik 2023 SCMR 603 and Usman Ghani v. The Chief Post Master, GPO, Karachi 2022 SCMR 745 ref. Malik Naeem Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Khaleeq Ahmed, D.A.G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th June, 2025.

Summary: (Against the judgement dated 21.03.2023 passed by the High Court of Sindh Circuit Court, Hyderabad in C.Ps. Nos. D-2799, D-3072 of 2016 and D-2090 of 2018). (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Employment---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Disputed facts, resolution of---Issuance of appointment order---Exclusion of names of the petitioners from the list of new appointees forwarded to the Bank for opening of salary accounts without withdrawal/cancellation of appointment orders---Petitioners filed constitutional petitions for releasing their salaries, which were dismissed by the High Court for want of jurisdiction owing to questions involving resolution of disputed/controversial facts---Validity---While dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the disputed question of fact could not be resolved, it must also be considered that to effectively bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under this Article, the alternate remedy, if any available, is not only to be adequate but also equally efficacious under the law and commensurate to the same purpose which is sought to be achieved through a Constitutional petition under Article 199---Extraordinary jurisdiction is intended primarily for providing an expeditious remedy in a case where the illegality of the impugned action of an executive or other authority can be established without any elaborate enquiry into complicated or disputed facts---Once the appointment letters were issued without any rider or condition, then there was no question of enlistment of the names of the petitioners in the provisional list, as apparently, all codal formalities were completed before issuance of the appointment letters, which was the standard practice and procedure in the recruitment process of government departments---Petitioners did not raise any factual controversy or disputed question of fact, but approached the High Court for releasing their salaries and relied on their appointment letters which were not denied or controverted in the comments filed by the respondents---Even if the appointment letters were issued to the petitioners without satisfying or complying with the codal formalities, the High Court, rather than outrightly non-suiting the petitioners, or without indulging in the realm or sphere of factual controversy, could have easily called upon the concerned Department on the basis of available documents, to make inquiries regarding the veracity and legitimacy of the appointment letters; how the appointment letters were issued; who issued the appointment letters and how these were recalled; whether the appointment letters could be recalled without any show cause notice or without providing any opportunity of being heard; and who was actually responsible of issuing the appointment letters (if the codal formalities were not fulfilled) and what departmental action was proposed or taken against the responsible persons who misled and defrauded the petitioners---Petitioners were made the scapegoat and victim of severe departmental actions and highhandedness while the actual wrongdoers and malefactors were always exonerated---Civil petitions were converted into appeals and were allowed, in circumstances. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Disputed questions of fact, resolution of---Such questions cannot be entertained and adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction and in the constitutional jurisdiction---High Court cannot go into miniature and diminutive details---Extraordinary jurisdiction granted under Article 199 of the Constitution is envisioned predominantly for affording an express remedy where the unlawfulness and impropriety of the action of an executive or other governmental authority could be substantiated without any convoluted inquiry. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Object of proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution---Scope---Infringement of a legal/complete right, enforcement of--- Object of proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution is the enforcement of a right and not the establishment of a right and, therefore, the right of the concerned incumbent, which he seeks to enforce, must not only be clear and complete but there must also be an actual infringement of the right. Malik Naeem Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Abida Parveen Channar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Sibtain Mehmood, Additional Advocate General Sindh for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th June, 2025.

Summary: Employment--- ----Quota based appointments---Supreme Court’s view on rendering such appointments as unconstitutional---Quota reserved for children---Termination from service, challenge to---Briefly, petitioner’s father was serving as a postal clerk in the postal services department and was invalidated and prematurely retired on medical grounds---Following his retirement, the petitioner applied for appointment under the quota reserved for children of employees who retired on medical grounds and was appointed as a postal clerk on a contract basis---Subsequently, the respondent-department cancelled the petitioner’s appointment through the impugned order, prompting the petitioner to file a constitutional petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution seeking reinstatement---Held: In view of the Supreme Court’s judgment, dated 18-10-2024 in Civil Petition No.3390 of 2021, all rules, policies, memorandums, etc., which provided for the appointment, without open advertisement, competition, and merit, of children and/or family members of employees who retired or died during service, were declared as discriminatory and ultra vires to Arts. 3, 4, 5(2), 18, 25(1), and 27 of the Constitution---In the present case, the petitioner had unequivocally admitted in the petition that he was appointed under the son’s quota---However, at the time of his appointment on 01.11.2024, the said quota had already been declared unconstitutional and unlawful by both the High Court and the Supreme Court---Therefore, the petitioner’s appointment was patently illegal, void ab initio, and coram non judice---Impugned order did not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by the High Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction---The petition, being devoid of any merit, was dismissed in limine. Civil Petition No.3390 of 2021 and Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Agriculture, Peshawar and others v. Tahir Mushtaq and others 2025 PLC (C.S.) 34 rel. Muhammad Rashid Khan Wazir for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 4th June, 2025.

Summary: (Against the judgement dated 21.03.2023 passed by the High Court of Sindh Circuit Court, Hyderabad in C.Ps. Nos. D-2799, D-3072 of 2016 and D-2090 of 2018). (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Employment---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Disputed facts, resolution of---Issuance of appointment order---Exclusion of names of the petitioners from the list of new appointees forwarded to the Bank for opening of salary accounts without withdrawal/cancellation of appointment orders---Petitioners filed constitutional petitions for releasing their salaries, which were dismissed by the High Court for want of jurisdiction owing to questions involving resolution of disputed/controversial facts---Validity---While dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the disputed question of fact could not be resolved, it must also be considered that to effectively bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under this Article, the alternate remedy, if any available, is not only to be adequate but also equally efficacious under the law and commensurate to the same purpose which is sought to be achieved through a Constitutional petition under Article 199---Extraordinary jurisdiction is intended primarily for providing an expeditious remedy in a case where the illegality of the impugned action of an executive or other authority can be established without any elaborate enquiry into complicated or disputed facts---Once the appointment letters were issued without any rider or condition, then there was no question of enlistment of the names of the petitioners in the provisional list, as apparently, all codal formalities were completed before issuance of the appointment letters, which was the standard practice and procedure in the recruitment process of government departments---Petitioners did not raise any factual controversy or disputed question of fact, but approached the High Court for releasing their salaries and relied on their appointment letters which were not denied or controverted in the comments filed by the respondents---Even if the appointment letters were issued to the petitioners without satisfying or complying with the codal formalities, the High Court, rather than outrightly non-suiting the petitioners, or without indulging in the realm or sphere of factual controversy, could have easily called upon the concerned Department on the basis of available documents, to make inquiries regarding the veracity and legitimacy of the appointment letters; how the appointment letters were issued; who issued the appointment letters and how these were recalled; whether the appointment letters could be recalled without any show cause notice or without providing any opportunity of being heard; and who was actually responsible of issuing the appointment letters (if the codal formalities were not fulfilled) and what departmental action was proposed or taken against the responsible persons who misled and defrauded the petitioners---Petitioners were made the scapegoat and victim of severe departmental actions and highhandedness while the actual wrongdoers and malefactors were always exonerated---Civil petitions were converted into appeals and were allowed, in circumstances. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Disputed questions of fact, resolution of---Such questions cannot be entertained and adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction and in the constitutional jurisdiction---High Court cannot go into miniature and diminutive details---Extraordinary jurisdiction granted under Article 199 of the Constitution is envisioned predominantly for affording an express remedy where the unlawfulness and impropriety of the action of an executive or other governmental authority could be substantiated without any convoluted inquiry. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Object of proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution---Scope---Infringement of a legal/complete right, enforcement of--- Object of proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution is the enforcement of a right and not the establishment of a right and, therefore, the right of the concerned incumbent, which he seeks to enforce, must not only be clear and complete but there must also be an actual infringement of the right. Malik Naeem Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Abida Parveen Channar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Sibtain Mehmood, Additional Advocate General Sindh for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th June, 2025.

Summary: (a) Unani, Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic Practitioners Act (II of 1965)--- ----Ss.2(c), 2(k), 17 & 21(1)&(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 18, 25 & 199---Admission to recognized institution of Unani or Ayurvedic system of medicine and Homoeopathy---Minimum qualification requirement---Candidates having bachelor or higher education with science given preference---Discrimination, plea of---Vires of law, challenge to---The issue in the present case revolved around the constitutional validity of S.21(2) of the Unani, Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965, as amended by the 2021 amendment---The amendment raised the minimum qualification for admission to recognized institutions of Homeopathy from Matriculation with Science to Intermediate (F.Sc. Pre-Medical) or equivalent, giving preference to candidates with higher science education---The petitioner, a homoeopathic medical college, challenged this provision as being discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights under the Constitution, particularly in comparison to the qualifications prescribed for Unani and Ayurvedic institutions---Held: Determination of qualifications for admission to institutions in any field was within the legislative competence of the Government---The Act, 2021 was placed before the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) and after approval, it received assent of the President on 1st December, 2021---The amendment in Subsection (2) of the Act, 1965 in no way offended any of the fundamental rights of the petitioners, moreso, Art.18 of the Constitution as it in no way abridged the right of trade or profession of the petitioners embodied therein---The qualification so enhanced through the amendment was though directly related to the candidates willing to apply for admission in the institutions but none had come forward to challenge the vires of the same---There was a clear distinction between qualifications for homeopathy and unani or ayurvedic system of medicine---Therefore, there was no case of discrimination with the students seeking admission in homeopathy as compared to the unani or ayurvedic system of medicine---Both the fields were not similar and akin---Article 25 of the Constitution ordained that all citizens were equal before law and entitled to equal protection of law and also guaranteed that there would be no discrimination on the basis of sex but by now it is well entrenched principle that equality does not prohibit classification for differently placed persons---Petitioners failed to demonstrate that subsection (2) of S.21 of the Act, 1965, in any manner, offended any of the provisions of the Constitutionor it abridged any of the fundamental right guaranteed therein, as such the present as well as connected petition was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199---Constitutional petition---Vires of law, challenge to---Pre-requisite---Necessity to demonstrate violation of fundamental rights---Scope---There is no cavil that judiciary can examine the vires of legislation on the touchstone of the Constitution but the person throwing any challenge to the provisions of a statute is obliged to demonstrate that it either offends any of the fundamental rights or abrogates the provisions of the Constitution. Messrs Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2018 SCMR 802 and Abdullah Jumani and others v. Province of Sindh and others 2024 SCMR 1258 rel. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ---Arts. 25 & 199---Equality of citizens---Reasonable classification, doctrine of---Intelligible differential as basis for permissible distinction---Equality principle does not necessitate identical treatment in all circumstances---Scope---The doctrine of reasonable classification is founded on the assumption that the State has to perform multifarious activities and deal with a vast number of problems---Right of equality of citizens is always founded on an intelligible differentia, which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those, who have been left out---Right of equality is always to be weighed amongst equal in all respects and it is not necessary that every citizen shall be treated alike in all eventualities. Secretary Economic Affairs Division, Islamabad and others v. Anwarul Haq Ahmed and others 2013 SCMR 1687; Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary and another v. Samuel Bhatti and others 2009 SCMR 1034 and Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore and others v. Ch. Abdul Sattar Hans and 29 others 2015 SCMR 915 rel. M. Salman Idrees and Malik Jamal Tariq for Petitioner. Hunble Murad Siddique and Zulqarnain Tariq Qureshi for Petitioner (in Writ Petition No. 1917 of 2024). Mansoor Usman Awan, Attorney General for Pakistan. Haseeb Shakoor Paracha, Additional Attorney General for Pakistan. Ms. Rahat Farooq Raja, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Date of hearing: 4th June, 2025. Mirza Viqas Rauf, J.--- This single judgment shall decide subject petition as well as Writ Petition No.1917 of 2024, being raising similar questions of law and facts, more specifically challenging the vires of Section 21(2) of The Unani, Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965 (II of 1965) (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1965”). The petitioners, herein, are homoeopathic medical colleges imparting education to the pupils and they are aggrieved of Subsection (2) of Section 21 of the Act, 1965 as amended through The Unani, Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic Practitioners (Amendment), Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2021”).

Summary: FIR is always considered a cornerstone of the case of prosecution, however, if complainant immediately after the occurrence meets the police official, narrates entire detail of occurrence to him but it is not recorded then and there rather subsequently on written application or oral statement of the same complainant received at some other place, FIR is recorded then neither it can be termed as First Information Report as mentioned in Section: 154 Cr.P.C. in stricto sensu nor any importance can be attached to the same like promptly recorded FIR.

Summary: The nub of the matter is to examine whether mere registration of a criminal case empowers the authorities to place name of a citizen on the Passport Control List more so, when such citizen is admitted to bail? Rule 22(2)(b) of the Passport Rules, 2021� has been relied upon by the respondents to justify the impugned action. The respondents claim that it was a routine matter in which such recommendations were made by the Home Department, Government of the Punjab alongwith Punjab Police, however, the officials of the Punjab Government failed to refer to any guideline, or data indicating how often such letters are sent by Home Department, Government of the Punjab or in what categories of cases this step is taken, more particularly, when the underlaying reasoning i.e., the petitioner not being apprehended is incorrect on account of his confirmed pre-arrest bail. This Court is of the opinion that mere involvement in a criminal case is insufficient to justify a restriction on international travel, especially when the accused is admitted to bail by a Competent Court.

Summary: Determination of qualifications for admission to institutions in any field is within the legislative competence of the government

Summary: The petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") based, inter alia, on the ground that the suit of the respondent was barred under Order II Rule 2, CPC was dismissed and the said finding was maintained by the Revisional Court below. This Court held that pattern of electing one remedy, abandoning it after adverse consequences, then shifting to the arbitration without proper recourse, and finally returning to file a third suit without compliance with the mandatory legal provisions is precisely what the doctrine of election, the bar contained in Order II Rule 2 CPC, and the scheme of the Arbitration Act, 1940 aim to prevent. If such litigation is allowed to proceed without scrutiny under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it would set a dangerous precedent whereby a litigant could perpetually avoid finality by alternating between forums and/or remedies, without accountability. The law does not permit a party to keep the adversary entangled in an unending chain of litigation by withholding material facts, disowning procedural consequences, and reviving stale claims under the guise of a fresh suit. The respondent, having exhausted his remedies and failed to pursue them diligently, cannot now be allowed to relitigate the same dispute under a new garb.