Summary: (a) Service law—Study leave / permission for higher education abroad—Discretion of authority—Scope— ----Judicial officer challenged refusal of permission to apply for Master Degree in Law from foreign university—Validity—Held, grant of permission to pursue higher education abroad is not governed by any absolute right, nor backed by any express statutory provision, rule or binding policy mandating such permission in every case—Such matter falls within discretionary domain of competent authority to be exercised in light of facts, service requirements, and institutional considerations—Authority cannot be compelled to grant such permission as a matter of course, particularly in view of scarcity of judicial officers and exigencies of service—Tribunal declined to interfere in discretionary decision of authority. Cited Cases: Muhammad Ali Bukhari v. Federation of Pakistan through Establishment Secretary, Islamabad and others 2008 SCMR 214 Allah Ditta v. Director of Education, Colleges, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur and another 1992 PLC (C.S.) 571 (b) Service law—Leave—Study leave—Nature—Not a vested right— ----Leave including study leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right—Grant of such leave is subject to fulfillment of prescribed conditions and service discipline—Competent authority has discretion to refuse, postpone, or regulate leave in view of service exigencies and institutional needs—Exercise of such discretion does not warrant interference unless shown to be arbitrary, unlawful, or without jurisdiction—Refusal of permission in present case was lawful and within competence of authority. (c) Service Tribunal—Scope of interference—Discretionary administrative orders— ----Tribunal does not ordinarily interfere with discretionary administrative decisions unless illegality, mala fide, or jurisdictional defect is established—Impugned order declining permission for foreign LLM was passed after considering relevant factors and applicable policy—Appellant failed to establish any legal right or illegality in impugned decision—Case law cited by appellant was distinguishable—Tribunal declined to interfere. Disposition: Service Appeal No.15 of 2023 was dismissed being devoid of merit, however appellant was permitted to apply afresh for such permission at an appropriate stage.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Article 25---Equality before law---Discrimination in granting back benefits--- The appellant, a reinstated judicial officer, alleged gross discrimination in the denial of back benefits for the intervening period, despite similarly placed colleagues being granted such benefits---The Tribunal held that the denial of back benefits in the appellant's case was a violation of the equality clause under Article 25 of the Constitution, as the respondent failed to provide justification for the discriminatory treatment. (b) Punjab Civil Service Law---Back benefits for reinstated civil servants---Principle of law--- The appellant, reinstated into service from the date of dismissal, was entitled to back benefits for the intervening period during which he was not employed for gain---The Tribunal reaffirmed that when an illegal dismissal is overturned, reinstatement must include consequential relief, including salary and benefits for the intervening period, unless it is proven that the employee was gainfully employed---Reliance placed on PLD 1970 SC 415, 2015 SCMR 77, and 2021 SCMR 962. (c) Limitation---Overcoming procedural impediments in service matters--- The Tribunal held that the plea of limitation could not bar the appellant’s legitimate claim for back benefits, particularly when a judicial precedent establishes entitlement---Reliance placed on Abdul Hameed v. WAPDA (2021 SCMR 1230). -----Disposition: Appeal allowed; respondent directed to calculate and provide the financial back benefits to the appellant in light of the case law.

Summary: Background:Muhammad Anayet Gondal filed an appeal in the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Lahore (Service Appeal No. 03 of 2022) against decisions made by the Registrar of the Lahore High Court. These decisions denied him back benefits and treated the period from his dismissal to reinstatement as time not spent on duty. Gondal had been dismissed from service in 2012, reinstated in 2015 following a successful service appeal, and again reinstated from the date of his original dismissal in 2019 after another successful appeal. His subsequent representations for back benefits were declined in 2021 and 2022.-----Issues:Whether the intervening period between Gondal?s dismissal and reinstatement should be considered as time spent on duty for the purpose of back benefits.Whether the denial of back benefits to Gondal, while similar benefits were granted to similarly placed colleagues, constituted discrimination.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the respondent to calculate and grant the financial back benefits to Gondal. The decision was based on the principle that an employee reinstated after wrongful dismissal is entitled to be treated as if they had been continuously in service, including receiving back benefits, unless it can be shown that they were gainfully employed during the intervening period. This principle has been supported by several Supreme Court rulings which affirm that denial of such benefits is the exception, not the rule. The Tribunal found that Gondal had not been gainfully employed during the intervening period, and there was no justification to deny him back benefits, especially when his similarly situated colleagues had received such benefits. This was also found to be a violation of the equality clause of the Constitution.-----Citations/Precedents:Muhammad Sharif and others v. Inspector General of Punjab, Police, Lahore and others (2021 SCMR 962)Pakistan through General Manager, P.W.R., Lahore v. Mrs. A.V. Issacs (PLD 1970 Supreme Court 415)Inspector General of Police, Punjab v. Tariq Mahmood (2015 SCMR 77)Abdul Hameed and others v. Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman, Lahore and others (2021 SCMR 1230)

Summary: Background:Syed Faizan e Rasool appealed against a decision denying him permission to apply for a Master's Degree in Law from a foreign university. The decision directed him to seek admission at a local university instead, which he claimed contradicted the declared policy of the court and was discriminatory as similar permissions had been granted to his colleagues.-----Issues:Whether the denial of permission for Faizan e Rasool to study abroad was justified and in line with existing policies.Whether the decision was discriminatory compared to the treatment of similar requests by other judicial officers.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Tribunal upheld the decision to deny permission, finding that the authority's discretion in granting such permissions was not exercised arbitrarily. The Tribunal noted that while the permission to pursue higher education abroad is not guaranteed under any rule or policy, it must be considered on a case-by-case basis. The Tribunal also highlighted that Faizan e Rasool had not convincingly justified how the foreign degree would significantly contribute to his personal growth and professional duties as a judicial officer. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the appellant had failed to meet the necessary criteria and justify the need for a foreign degree over a local one.-----Citations/Precedents:Usman Ali Chhachhar v. Moula Bux Chachhar and others (2019 SCMR 2043)Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Limited v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Central Secretariat, Islamabad and others (2015 SCMR 630)Abid Hassan and others v. P.I.A.C. and others (2005 SCMR 25)Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi v. Pakistan Mutual Insurance Company Limited, Rawalpindi (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 14)Pakistan Medical and Dental Council through Authorized Representative v. Muhammad Junaid Alam and others (PLD 2019 Lahore 234)Ameer Afzal etc. v. Govt. of Punjab (NLR 2016 Service 34)Dr. Sikandar Ali v. Government College University, Lahore through Vice-Chancellor [2012 PLC (C.S.) 1119]Muhammad Ali Bukhari v Federation of Pakistan through Establishment Secretary, Islamabad and 2 others (2008 SCMR 214)Allah Ditta v. Director of Education, Colleges, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur and another [1992 PLC (C.S.) 571]Anita Malik v. A.I.I.M.S. & another [2006(129) DLT 136]P. Geetha v. Kerala Livestock Development Board Ltd. And another (2015(1) Ker L.J. 494)

Summary: Background:Nazir Ahmed Langah appealed against a decision denying his request for a proforma promotion as District & Sessions Judge, which would affect his pensionary benefits. This decision was challenged after a series of legal proceedings related to Langah's earlier dismissal from service, subsequent reinstatements, and the treatment of his intervening period of non-service as time spent on duty for financial back benefits.-----Issues:Whether Langah is entitled to a proforma promotion as District & Sessions Judge for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits, considering his previous legal battles and ultimate reinstatement.Whether Langah's application for promotion and subsequent appeal were justifiably made within time limits, given the extensive litigation history and final outcomes favoring him.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Tribunal allowed Langah?s appeal, granting him the proforma promotion and related monetary benefits. The Tribunal reasoned that since Langah's disciplinary proceedings and other legal hurdles had concluded favorably for him, and he had been declared to have been on duty during the periods in question, he was entitled to consideration for promotion as if he had been in continuous service. The Tribunal also rejected the respondent's argument on the appeal being time-barred, noting the extensive and ongoing legal proceedings directly affected Langah?s ability to file timely appeals.----Citations/Precedents:Divisional Superintendent, N.W.R., Lahore v. Muhammad Sharif, Booking Clerk, N.W.R. Gujrat (PLD 1963 Supreme Court 340)Muhammad Sharif and others v. Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and others (2021 SCMR 962)Muhammad Afzal Khan v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore and others (2016 PLC (C.S.) 408)Muhammad Yasin v. Secretary, Government of Punjab and others (2007 SCMR 1769)Mohammad Tarique Khan v. Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chairman and 5 others (2024 PLC (C.S.) 91)Abdul Jabbar Khan v. Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Karachi and 5 others (1996 SCMR 850)Wadhu Mal v. Province of Sindh through Principal Secretary Chief Minister and 3 others (2023 PLC (C.S.) 1310)

Summary: Background:Alamgir Liaqat appealed against an order from the Registrar of the Lahore High Court, which declined his representation for the expunction of certain remarks recorded in his Performance Evaluation Report (PER) for the period from September to December 2022. The remarks, labeled as "advisory" by the reporting officer, were perceived by the appellant as "adverse" due to their implications on his dignity and integrity.-----Issues:Whether the remarks in question should be considered "advisory" or "adverse" in nature.Whether the appellant was entitled to have the remarks expunged from his PER.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Tribunal determined that the remarks were indeed "adverse" rather than "advisory" as claimed by the reporting officer and should be expunged from the appellant's PER. The Tribunal reasoned that adverse remarks significantly affect a civil servant's career and reputation, and as such, they should only be recorded if preceded by proper counseling and if the civil servant fails to improve afterward. The record did not show any evidence of such counseling, nor did it justify the negative implications of the remarks on the appellant's career. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, expunging the impugned remarks from the appellant?s PER.----Citations/Precedents:Noor Elahi v. Director of Civilian Personnel, Rear Air Headquarters, Peshawar and 2 others (1997 SCMR 1749)Malik Azhar-ul-Haq v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore [2012 PLC (C.S.) 1208]Government of the Punjab and another v. Ehsan ul Haq Sethi (PLD 1986 Supreme Court 684)Engineer Jameel Ahmed Malik v. Pakistan Ordinance Factories Board, Wah Cantt. through Chairman and others (2004 SCMR 164)Lahore High Court, Lahore through Registrar v. Muhammad Jaangir Khan Goraya (1999 SCMR 2117)Shaukat Javed Farooq, under Secretary Civil Secretariat, Lahore v. District and Sessions Judge, Lahore and others (1999 SCMR 2141)Ch. Shabbir Hussain and others v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore and others (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 191)Director General, Intelligence Bureau v. Riaz-ul-Wahab and others (2023 SCMR 877)

Summary: Background:Zafar Hussain Bhatti filed an appeal against decisions denying his proforma promotion as District & Sessions Judge. These decisions followed disciplinary action against him for allegedly granting bail in violation of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997. This disciplinary action resulted in the withholding of his promotion for three years, effective retrospectively from 2012.-----Issues:Whether the disciplinary penalty of withholding promotion was appropriately applied and whether it could be imposed retrospectively.Whether the appellant's proforma promotion should be granted considering the timing and nature of the disciplinary action.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders withholding Bhatti's promotion and denying his request for a proforma promotion. The Tribunal held that once a promotion has been notified, subsequent events or allegations should not retrospectively affect that promotion, particularly when the promotion meets all legal and procedural requirements. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that penalties should not be applied retrospectively unless explicitly allowed by law, which was not demonstrated by the respondent in this case.-----Citations/Precedents:Secretary Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas Division, Islamabad v. Saeed Akhtar and another (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 392)Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communication & Works Department, Lahore and others v. Muhammad Khalid Usmani & others (2016 SCMR 2125)Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi (PLD 1969 SC 407)Capital Development Authority Through Chairman, Islamabad And Others v. Shabir Hussain And Others (2022 SCMR 627)Mrs. Zeenat Parveen Jaffery versus Secretary to Government of Sind, Education Department and 4 others (1983 PLC (C.S.) 1260)Noor Muhammad v. The Member Election Commission, Punjab and others (1985 SCMR 1178)Syed Sikandar Ali Shah v. Auditor-General of Pakistan and others (2002 SCMR 1124)Raja Muhammad Shafique Javaid v. Lahore High Court through Registrar (2005 PLC (C.S.) 1015)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)Rao Abdul Jabbar Khan v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore (2016 PLC (C.S.) 281)

Summary: Background:This case revolves around a civil petition filed by Raja Tanveer Safdar against Mrs. Tehmina Yasmeen and others. The petition challenges the Lahore High Court's decision, which upheld the orders passed by the Governor of Punjab and the Ombudsperson, Punjab. These orders enforced major penalties on Safdar, including compulsory retirement and forfeiture of past service for two years, based on allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct.----Issues:The legality and appropriateness of the penalties imposed on the petitioner, given the alleged double jeopardy violation.Whether the same set of facts led to multiple penalties under different laws, thus violating the constitutional protection against double jeopardy as provided in Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan.The distinction and interaction between defamation, harassment at the workplace, and misconduct under distinct legal frameworks.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court dismissed the civil petition, affirming the decisions of the lower courts and administrative bodies. It held that the principles of double jeopardy were not applicable as the penalties were imposed under separate laws with different purposes and legal requirements:Defamation under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, was addressed through a civil suit for damages due to harm caused by the petitioner's actions.Harassment at the workplace under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, resulted in compulsory retirement for creating a hostile work environment.Misconduct under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA), led to forfeiture of past service due to false allegations made by the petitioner.The court clarified that these proceedings, although based on interconnected events, did not constitute double jeopardy since they addressed different legal violations and were supported by different sets of evidence and legal standards.----Citations/Precedents:Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan provides protection against double jeopardy.Muhammad Ashraf v. the State elaborates on the principle of double jeopardy, asserting that one cannot be punished twice for the same offense based on the same facts.Various international norms and treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, also recognize the principle of double jeopardy.----Quote: ''(i) The Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 in essence protects the right to dignity at the workplace by ensuring an inclusive, safe and equitable workspace, where respect and acceptability are necessary prerequisites. (ii) Factual aspects of the orders of the Ombudsperson and the Governor as the appellate authority cannot be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction.''

Summary: Background:Muhammad Akram Sohail, the petitioner, challenged the legality of the inquiry proceedings re-initiated against him under Section 3 of the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 ("PEEDA, 2006"). This followed a prior exoneration on similar charges related to his role as a Forest Guard, where he was initially accused of causing the loss of 466 trees valued at Rs. 40,26,500. Despite being cleared of these charges in a previous order dated 08.05.2019, the Divisional Forest Officer, Layyah Forest Division, issued a new show cause notice and initiated de novo inquiry proceedings.----Issues:Whether the re-initiation of inquiry proceedings against the petitioner was legal and justified, given that he had been previously exonerated for the same charges.Whether the initiation of de novo inquiry proceedings contravenes the constitutional protection against double jeopardy as provided under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court held that the re-initiation of inquiry proceedings against Sohail was unlawful and without authority. The court noted that once the petitioner had been exonerated, and the show cause notice withdrawn, the competent authority lacked the legal basis to review or reopen the matter. The court emphasized that legal provisions do not allow for a review of a final decision in disciplinary proceedings unless there is a stipulation within the law, which was not present in PEEDA, 2006. Consequently, the impugned order dated 18.01.2021 was set aside to the extent it affected the petitioner, reinforcing that a person cannot be vexed twice for the same cause.---Citations/Precedents:Javed Maqbool Bhatti v. Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department [1998 PLC (C.S.) 208]: Discussed the finality of disciplinary proceedings.Mrs. Khalida Amjad v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary of Education, Lahore and another [2009 PLC (C.S.) 1]: Related to the legality of revisiting disciplinary decisions.Muhammad Tariq Saeed and 2 others v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary Forest, Wildlife and Fisheries Department and 2 others [2011 PLC (C.S.) 884]: Explored the implications of final decisions in disciplinary actions.Rana Tahir Hassan Khan v. Capital Development Authority and others [2022 CLC 454]: Addressed the issue of double jeopardy in administrative proceedings.Administrator/Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority Karachi v. Ghulam Mustafa Khan and another [2011 SCMR 480]: Established principles regarding the re-initiation of inquiry on the same charges.Hasanat Gul and 8 others v. The Chief Minister, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Principal Secretary [2018 PLC (C.S.) Note 48]: Discussed the admissibility of challenging inquiry initiation in court.

Summary: Background: In Writ Petition No. 902/2020, the petitioner, the son of a deceased government employee, sought a direction for his appointment as Naib Tehsildar BPS-14 under the death package policy. The petitioner’s father, who was serving as Additional Commissioner, died in service on August 3, 2012. Despite applications and recommendations for his appointment, the petitioner was not considered, leading to allegations of discrimination and infringement of his rights. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Naib Tehsildar BPS-14 under the death package policy. 2- Whether the amendment in the rules in 2017 affects the petitioner’s right to appointment under the policy existing at the time of his father’s death. 3- Whether the respondents’ actions in processing other applications while ignoring the petitioner’s application constituted discrimination and mala fide intent. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for the post of Naib Tehsildar BPS-14 under the death package policy as it existed at the time of his father’s death in 2012. The petitioner’s right accrued in 2012 and could not be negated by the 2017 amendment to the rules. The court found that the respondents' failure to process the petitioner’s application, while processing similar applications for other candidates, constituted discriminatory treatment. The court emphasized that the doctrine of administrative justice, fairness, and transparency required that the petitioner’s application be considered and granted relief similar to other candidates. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment under the death package policy according to his eligibility and qualifications within three months. The writ petition was accepted, and the respondents were instructed to ensure transparency and fairness in the process, thereby providing the petitioner with the remedy he sought. ----Citations/Precedents: Controller of Central Accounts Govt. of Punjab Vs. Abdul Waheed 2023 SCMR 111 Zakria H.A Sattar Bilwani Vs. Inspecting Additional Commission of Wealth 2023 SCMR 271 Govt. of KPK Vs. Khalid Mehmood 2012 SCMR 864 Abid Mehmood Vs. Commissioner Revenue Poonch 2020 SCR 232 Syed Adman Ejaz Gillani Vs. DEO 2018 SCR 245 Khuram Shehzad Khan Vs. Secretary Agriculture 2018 SCR 14 Fazal Rubani Vs. Azad Govt. 2013 PLC (CS) 357 [2014 SCR 1385] [AIR 1982 SC India 149] [PLD 1992 Kar. 54] [2008 PLC CS 11] [PLD 2013 High Court of AJ&K 34] [SCMR 2012 455] [SCMR 1998 2268] Jacob, Law dict. Title remey. Per Holt CJ in Ashby Vs. White Broom’s legal Maxim 10th Edition