Summary: [(1). In case of proven fraud and misappropriation of public money, the delinquent cannot be exonerated. (2). The long term of service is no ground for conversion of punishment of dismissal into compulsory retirement. (3). The punishment was quite proportionate to the act of misconduct. (4). Mens rea refers to the intent of wrongdoing behind the crime knowingly/purposely] Allah Ditta, was a Postmaster in the BPS] category at Diwalian Post Office, Chakwal Division. He was served a show cause notice alleging misappropriation of Rs. 17,43,591/- through bogus withdrawals. After a regular inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and dismissed from service. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order, but his appeal was dismissed by the competent authority. The petitioner's counsel argued that the tribunal's judgment was based on misreading and non-reading of evidence. They contended that the punishment of dismissal was too harsh considering the petitioner's long 34-year tenure and the fact that he had repaid the misappropriated amount before the formal inquiry. The petitioner requested the punishment be converted to compulsory retirement. The additional attorney general argued that the punishment was imposed after a proper inquiry, which established the petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They claimed that the tribunal had considered all relevant aspects and rightly dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds for converting the punishment. After hearing the arguments, the court found that the petitioner had been provided ample opportunity for defense, and due process of law was followed. The competent authority passed the dismissal order after finding the petitioner guilty based on the inquiry report. The court noted that the petitioner admitted his guilt but tried to justify it based on personal reasons, which did not justify committing the offense of misappropriating public money. The court emphasized that it would not substitute its own finding unless it found the competent authority's decision to be unreasonable or against the law. It stated that leniency in cases of misappropriation of public money would set a dangerous precedent and undermine public confidence in institutions. The court rejected the petitioner's claim for conversion of the punishment, citing the gravity of the misconduct.The court found no illegality or perversity in the tribunal's judgment and dismissed the petition, refusing to grant leave to appeal.

Summary: [(1) Discussion on admission, doctrine of estoppel, acquiescence and approbation and reprobation. (2) Rule 12-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointments, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1974 does not prohibit the competent authority from making inquiry and rectification of the interpolations made by the Civil Servant in the service book--correction in data of birth] The petitioner, who was appointed as Assistant Superintendent Jail, claimed that his date of birth was recorded as 01.01.1961 in the Service Book, but in a provisional seniority list circulated by the Home Department, it was shown as 01.01.1958. He challenged this inconsistency by filing a departmental appeal, and his retirement notification was initially issued on 27.10.2017 with a retirement date of 31.12.2017. However, the notification was later withdrawn and kept in abeyance. The petitioner argued that once a civil servant's date of birth is recorded at the time of joining service, it cannot be altered according to Rule 12-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1974. He claimed that the Home Department's dispute over his date of birth was illegal, and the subsequent retirement notification withdrawal was justified. After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court examined the evidence. The court found that there were discrepancies in the petitioner's date of birth records and concluded that the petitioner's correct date of birth was 01.01.1958, as verified by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. The court also noted that the petitioner himself had acknowledged his retirement date as 31.12.2017 in a previous court filing. Based on these findings, the Supreme Court rejected the petitioner's appeal, stating that there was no justification to consider the incorrect entry in the service book as sacrosanct or unchangeable. The court held that each case should be decided on its own facts, and in this case, the competent authority had taken the appropriate decision, which was affirmed by the tribunal.

Summary: Dismissal From Service---Barred By Time---Dismissed --- The Tribunal had dismissed the petitioner's appeal (Appeal No.388(P)CS of 2019) in limine, citing that it was barred by time. The case involves the petitioner, a Signal Operator with Khyber Rifles, who was implicated in the arrest of an individual with recovered US Dollars. Subsequently, the petitioner faced disciplinary actions, including imprisonment and demotion, and filed appeals. The Peshawar High Court dismissed a constitutional petition for lack of jurisdiction, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The petitioner argues for the condonation of delay, asserting a genuine belief in approaching the High Court. The legal analysis involves scrutiny of the petitioner's appeals' timeliness, application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and the contention that there is no limitation against a void order. The court, after examining the arguments, emphasizes the need for due diligence in choosing the appropriate forum, rejects the petitioner's claim of ambiguity in the law, and asserts that limitation applies even to orders that are not void. Ultimately, the court upholds the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of being time-barred.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Employee of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited---Dismissal from service---Maintainability---Petitioner challenged office memoranda whereby major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed and departmental appeal was dismissed---High Court held that before examining merits of service grievance, Court was required to determine whether writ against ZTBL in respect of terms and conditions of service was maintainable. (b) Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited Staff Regulations, 2005---- ----Non-statutory regulations---Effect---Offer of employment expressly provided that petitioner’s terms and conditions of service would be governed by ZTBL Staff Regulations, 2005---Such regulations were framed by Board of Directors of ZTBL and had not been approved by Federal Government---Regulations were therefore non-statutory in nature and could not be enforced through constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199. (c) Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (Reorganization and Conversion) Ordinance, 2002---- ----S. 6---Protection of service terms---ZTBL employees---Pre-conversion and post-conversion employees---Section 6 protects officers and staff employed prior to conversion of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan into ZTBL against adverse change in terms and conditions of service---Petitioner was employed in 2016, several years after promulgation of Ordinance, 2002; therefore, statutory protection under S.6 was not available to him. (d) Service law---- ----Corporation/company employee---Post-conversion appointment---Master and servant relationship---Where employee was appointed after conversion/reorganization and was governed by non-statutory staff regulations, relationship between employee and corporation was that of master and servant---Such employee could not seek reinstatement or service relief through writ jurisdiction in absence of violation of statute or statutory rules. (e) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 199---Terms and conditions of service---Non-statutory employment rules---No writ for reinstatement---Employee of corporation governed by non-statutory rules cannot invoke constitutional jurisdiction for reinstatement against dismissal/termination from service---Remedy, if any, lies in claim for damages for wrongful dismissal/termination before appropriate forum. Cited Cases: • Masood Ahmed Bhatti v. Federation of Pakistan 2012 SCMR 152 • Muhammad Azhar Khattak v. OGDCL, W.P. No.1407/2015, decided on 30.06.2016 • 2016 PLC (C.S.) 315 • 2011 PLC (C.S.) 1007 • PLD 2010 SC 656 • PLD 2005 SC 806 • 1987 SCMR 1836 (f) Service law---- ----ZTBL employee---Allegation of concealment of educational eligibility---Dismissal from service---Merits not examined due maintainability---Petitioner contended that he had obtained 70% marks in M.Sc. Economics from Preston University and dismissal was harsh---High Court did not enter into merits because employment was governed by non-statutory regulations and writ petition itself was not maintainable. (g) Constitutional jurisdiction---- ----Corporation service dispute---Appropriate forum---Where writ petition challenging dismissal from service was not maintainable due master-servant relationship and non-statutory regulations, petitioner was left at liberty to assail impugned office memoranda before appropriate forum. Disposition: W.P. No.2966 of 2022 was dismissed as not maintainable; petitioner was left at liberty to challenge office memoranda dated 30.05.2022 and 13.07.2022 before the appropriate forum.

Summary: [1) Misconduct- Clause (b) of Section 2 and Section 3 of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. (2) Responsibility of Postmaster in Post Office Manual, Volume-VI, Chapter 8 & General Rule 403. (3) At the time of appraising any act of misconduct and penalty imposed by the management, the Service Tribunal is obligated to reevaluate the evidence produced during inquiry. (4) The concept of deterrent punishment is also discussed] The case revolves around the respondent, who was officiating as Head Postmaster at Kutchery Post Office in Karachi. A fraud in the Savings Bank Accounts was discovered, leading to disciplinary proceedings against the respondent under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The respondent was also indicted in a NAB reference but was acquitted by the Accountability Court. However, the disciplinary proceedings found the respondent guilty of misconduct and he was dismissed from service. The respondent filed an appeal in the Federal Service Tribunal, which allowed his appeal and ordered his reinstatement with back benefits. The appellants then filed an appeal in the Supreme Court challenging the tribunal's judgment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and heard arguments from both sides. The appellants argued that the respondent, as the Head Postmaster, failed to report irregularities and fraud committed by another individual. They claimed that the respondent was guilty of supervisory negligence and breach of trust. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that the procedure followed during the inquiry was flawed and the findings were contradictory. After considering the arguments and reviewing the case record, the Supreme Court found that the respondent was assigned the duties of Head Postmaster and Assistant Postmaster during the relevant period. The court also noted that the respondent admitted to not discharging his duties properly. Based on these findings, the Supreme Court upheld the tribunal's judgment and dismissed the appeal.

Summary: [(i) Objectives of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010, highlighted (ii) Constitutional foundations of rights to 'gender equality' and 'safe working environment', explained (iii) meaning and scope of right to 'dignity', narrated (iv) Complaints against sexual harassment to be decided on merits irrespective of the delay in reporting the matter, emphasized] ---- 1. Facts and Proceedings:The petitioners lodged a complaint against the respondent with the Federal Ombudsman under the Protection against Harassment Act.The Federal Ombudsman held the respondent liable, imposing minor penalties.Both parties appealed to the President, who modified the punishment to major penalty - removal from service.The respondent challenged the President's order before the Islamabad High Court, resulting in partial acceptance of the writ petition.The Supreme Court hears the appeal against the High Court's judgment. ---- 3. Judicial Review Principles:The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review in constitutional jurisdiction, highlighting that interference is only justified in cases of misreading or non-reading of material evidence or if the findings are based on no evidence.Citing legal precedents, the judgment reiterates that High Courts cannot interfere with findings of fact unless there is a legal error. ---- 4. Examination of President's Order:The Supreme Court scrutinizes the President's order, particularly the enhancement of punishment.The High Court's observation, questioning the lack of reasons for enhancing the punishment, is challenged. The Supreme Court contends that the President did provide sufficient reasons in para 27 of the order.The judgment asserts that in the absence of misreading or non-reading of material evidence, the High Court rightly refrained from interfering with concurrent findings of facts. ---- 5. Addressing Delay in Complaint:The judgment addresses the respondent's objection regarding the delay in lodging the complaint, asserting that such delays are understandable and should not deter victims from seeking justice. ---- 6. Interpretation of the Protection against Harassment Act:The judgment interprets the Protection against Harassment Act in a broader constitutional context, linking it to fundamental rights, including the right to life, dignity, liberty, and equality.It acknowledges the 2022 Amendment Act's expansion of the Act's scope to protect transgender persons. ---- 7. Conversion of Punishment and Conclusion:The Supreme Court converts the respondent's punishment from 'removal from service' to 'compulsory retirement' and increases the compensation amount.The judgment concludes by allowing one petition and dismissing the other. ---- 8. Broader Implications:The judgment reinforces the constitutional significance of a safe working environment free from harassment and aligns the Act with broader constitutional rights.It signals a progressive stance by acknowledging the protection of transgender persons under the Act.The Court emphasizes the absolute and non-negotiable nature of the right to dignity, linking it to constitutional ideals of liberty, equality, and social justice.

Summary: Section(s) of law; Article 199 of The Constitution of Islamic Republicof Pakistan, 1973.1. Whenever there is allegation of misconduct against an employee, thenbefore terminating him from service, a regular inquiry has to beconducted or else a termination order without regular inquiry wouldnot sustain in the eyes of law.2. In case of allegation of misconduct which carries a lifelong stigma initself, a competent authority cannot dispensed with the regular inquiryas it would otherwise amount to condemned unheard.3. Before passing of any order of major penalty, a regular inquiry is musteven if the allegations are of petty nature.4. When statutes/rules governing the service of an employee provide for aregular inquiry, then such inquiry has to be conducted before passing afatal order with respect to the terms and conditions of an employee.5. Right of hearing is to be implemented in all kinds of proceedings andwhenever such right is denied, then any order passed thereon, shall notcarry any sanctity.

Summary: [ (1) Discussion on Code of Conduct for Punjab Police Officers, Article 3 and 4 of Police Order, Rule 14.4 and Rule 16.3 of the Police Rules, 1934 and Punjab Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975. (2) The departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution, both have distinctive characteristics with regard to the standard of proof and can be conducted concurrently. The acquittal in criminal case is not conclusive of the suitability of the candidate. (3) The disciplined force has cumbersome responsibility of maintaining law and public order, therefore, any person who wants to be part of the disciplined force should be a person of utmost integrity and uprightness with spotless character and clean antecedents] The petitioner, Faraz Naveed, was appointed as an ASI (Assistant Sub-Inspector) through the Punjab Public Service Commission. However, he was later indicted in FIR No. 916/2014 under Section 302 PPC (Pakistan Penal Code) and Section 6/7 ATA (Anti-Terrorism Act) read with Article 155-C of the Police Order, 2002. Additionally, he was convicted under Article 16 (d) of the Police Order, 2002, which led to a three-year imprisonment and a fine. However, Naveed challenged his conviction in the Lahore High Court, which ultimately acquitted him on the benefit of doubt. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Punjab Service Tribunal erred in dismissing the service appeal despite Naveed's acquittal in the criminal case. It was contended that since the petitioner had been acquitted by the High Court, no stigma should be attached to him in the departmental proceedings. Furthermore, it was argued that Naveed was not provided with an opportunity for a proper hearing during the departmental inquiry, yet a major penalty was imposed on him. The petitioner also questioned the credibility of the alleged recoveries and the lack of participation from the investigating officer in the departmental inquiry. The court did not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Civil Petition is dismissed and leave is refused.

Summary: Background: The appellant, a former Secretary to the Government, Information Department of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, was dismissed from service on grounds of misconduct. He successfully challenged the dismissal in the High Court, but the Government's appeal to the Supreme Court resulted in the restoration of the dismissal order. Multiple review petitions filed by the appellant were dismissed. The appellant's latest application for review of the Supreme Court's judgment dated 4.10.2012 was returned by the Registrar, prompting the present appeal. -----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant’s review application of the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 4.10.2012 should be entertained. 2- Whether the appellant was denied an opportunity of hearing before the order was passed. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Review Application: The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s review application, filed after a significant delay, sought to reopen a matter that had attained finality. The appellant’s grounds for review had already been addressed in previous judgments. --Opportunity of Hearing: The Court noted that the principles of natural justice were considered. However, the appellant's previous applications had already been addressed comprehensively, and his latest application did not present new grounds or errors apparent on the face of the record to justify further review. The appeal was dismissed, and the Registrar’s order returning the review application was upheld. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Rashid vs. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government & 20 others [PLD 1987 SC (AJ&K) 60] Chairman Pearl Development Authority vs. Tariq Inqalabi & 7 others [2005 SCR 186] Taskeen Naz vs. Fehmida Begum & 11 others [2016 SCR 1436] Mansab Ali vs. Amir & 3 others [PLD 1971 Supreme Court 124] Sangram Singh, Appellant vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah and another [AIR 1955 Supreme Court 425] Azad Government & 4 others vs. Muhammad Siddique Haideri [2000 SCR 554] Chairman AJK Council vs. Abdul Latif & 5 others [1997 SCR 264] The University of AJ&K Muzaffarabad & 6 others vs. Engineer Muhammad Khalid [2004 SCR 84] Major (Rtd.) Rafique Ahmed Durrani vs. AJ&K University & 5 others [2005 SCR 373]

Summary: Against Reinstatment into Service---dismissal from service---The respondents in the case were Siddique Ahmed and Jhandy Khan, who were working as postmen and were accused of misappropriating money orders. They were alleged to have forged signatures of payees and kept the money instead of delivering it to the rightful owners.The competent authority, after investigation and personal hearings, dismissed the respondents from service as a major penalty. The respondents then filed departmental appeals, which were dismissed, leading them to file Service Appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed their appeals, converting the penalty of dismissal into withholding one increment for two years.The appellants challenged the Tribunal's decision, arguing that the respondents' admission of guilt and subsequent return of the misappropriated amount did not absolve them of their liability. They contended that the respondents had breached their duty to deliver the money orders to the payees or hand them over to the post office if the payees were unavailable.The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 8th July 2021, agreed with the appellants' arguments. The Court noted that the misappropriation of public money, regardless of the amount, constituted dishonesty and misconduct, breaching the trust and confidence reposed in a government servant. The Court emphasized that any misappropriation, temporary or permanent, should be strictly dealt with. It observed that the respondents had admitted to using the money orders for their own purposes and were habitual in committing such misappropriation.Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The respondents' dismissal from service as a major penalty was restored, and the penalty of withholding one increment for two years was overturned.