Summary: Against Reinstatment into Service---The appeal challenges the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal (FST), Lahore, passed in Review Petition No. 03 of 2019. The appellant, Chief Postmaster General, Post Office, Multan, and others, have challenged the FST's decision to convert the respondent's penalty of dismissal from service to stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect.The case revolves around the respondent, Hameed-ud-Din, who was posted as Postal Clerk, Utility Bills Compilation, and Assistant Chief Postmaster (Counter) in GPO, Multan. The issue arose when the respondent failed to submit Payment Order (PPO) vouchers for July to September 2015. The department alleged that he caused a financial loss of Rs. 11,09,500 to the Post Office due to missing vouchers.During the proceedings, the respondent argued that the loss occurred due to the bag containing vouchers being lost and that it was unintentional negligence. The court examined whether the respondent was condemned unheard and if the inquiry was conducted properly. The court also assessed whether the penalty of dismissal and recovery of funds was appropriate.The Supreme Court concluded that the respondent was not condemned unheard and that the inquiry proceedings were conducted according to the law. The court found that the respondent's actions resulted in a financial loss, and the penalty imposed was commensurate with the seriousness of the allegations.

Summary: The appellant, who was appointed as a Chowkidar (BPS-1) in the Municipal Committee, Pind Dadan Khan, took unauthorized leave from 01.02.2013 to 31.01.2014. During this leave period, he absconded from the country following the registration of a criminal case against him. Subsequently, the appellant was arrested abroad and was later acquitted of the charges in March 2017. However, during his absence, the department conducted an inquiry against him and recommended the penalty of removal from service under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The competent authority, however, imposed a major penalty of dismissal from service on 22.10.2015.The appellant challenged his dismissal through a departmental appeal, which was dismissed in August 2017. He then filed a representation before the Deputy Commissioner of Jhelum in September 2017, but that was also rejected in May 2019. Finally, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which was dismissed, leading to the current appeal in the Supreme Court.The appellant's counsel argued that proper procedure was not followed during the inquiry and that he should have been reinstated after his acquittal. However, the Additional Advocate General supported the dismissal, stating that the penalty was justified due to the appellant's unauthorized absence.After hearing the arguments and examining the records, the Court concluded that the appellant's absence from duty was admitted, and there was no need for a regular inquiry. The Court, however, found fault with the enhancement of the penalty from removal from service (recommended by the Inquiry Officer) to dismissal from service by the competent authority, without providing adequate reasoning. Therefore, the Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the penalty from dismissal from service to removal from service, considering the appellant's length of service and the fact that he had already suffered hardship.

Summary: The petitioners, who were working as regular Security Guards at Dasu Hydropower Project under the respondent Department, were alleged to have assaulted the Security Inspector on July 3, 2015. Following the incident, the departmental authority initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners and imposed a major penalty of "dismissal from service" on August 27, 2015.The petitioners filed departmental appeals and simultaneously filed Service Appeals No. 2198(R)CS and 2199(R)CS of 2015 before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, challenging the imposed penalty. The Federal Service Tribunal disposed of the Service Appeals and converted the penalty of "dismissal from service" into "removal from service."The petitioners then filed the present petitions under Article 212(3) of the Constitution, questioning the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal.The main contention of the petitioners was that no regular inquiry was conducted by the department before imposing the major penalty and that the inquiry conducted was informal in nature. They also argued that the injured party did not appear before the Inquiry Committee, and his medical report was not produced.The Supreme Court, after examining the record, found that a duly constituted inquiry committee was appointed, and the inquiry followed the procedure laid down in Section 6 of the WAPDA (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978. The petitioners were given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, but they declined to do so.The Court also noted that the petitioners had filed Service Appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal without waiting for the prescribed 90-day period after filing departmental appeals, rendering their Service Appeals incompetent.Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, stating that no substantial question of law of public importance had been raised, and refused leave to appeal. The penalty of "removal from service" imposed by the Federal Service Tribunal was upheld.

Summary: Against reduction of penalty--The respondent, employed as a Chowkidar in the Federal Directorate of Education, Islamabad, was alleged to have physically assaulted a female co-worker, Mst. Parveen Akhtar, at a school premises. The incident was witnessed by various school staff members, and the victim filed complaints with the Federal Ombudsman and the police. The department conducted an internal inquiry, found the respondent guilty, and imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service.However, the Federal Service Tribunal partly allowed the respondent's appeal, converting the penalty of dismissal into withholding of increments for five years and reinstating him into service from the date of dismissal.The appellant argues that the penalty imposed was justified given the serious allegations of violence against the female worker. The respondent maintains that the incident did not happen as alleged and the punishment was harsh.The court finds sufficient evidence, including eyewitness accounts and a medico-legal report, to establish the respondent's guilt. It holds that the penalty of dismissal was appropriate for the gravity of the misconduct committed within the school premises. The court also criticizes the Tribunal's lack of lawful reasons for modifying the penalty. As a result, the appeal is allowed, and the department's punishment of dismissal is restored and affirmed.

Summary: Dismissed from the post of Director Anti-Quackery Sindh Health Care Commission (`SHCC`)--In view of the above discussion, the petition is not maintainable either on facts or in law. However, before parting with this case, it may be observed that every person has a right to approach a Court of law for redressal of his grievance, whether such grievance is against a private party or a public functionary. Article 199 of the Constitution restricts such right only to an aggrieved person, as contemplated in the said Article, who is aggrieved by any action or order of a public functionary or department or the Provincial or Federal Government. A person coming to Court must be fully aware of his right i.e. whether he is entitled to such right or not. We are constrained to observe that despite the legal position established in view of the plethora of pronouncements by the Honble Supreme Court as discussed above, the present petitioner filed this petition seeking a relief to which he was not entitled under the law. In other words, the petitioner wanted this Court to grant a declaration contrary to the law settled by the Honble Supreme Court. Not only this, he obtained an ad-interim injunction order in these proceedings against the respondent- SHCC. Such conduct on his part is not acceptable as he has consumed and wasted valuable time of this Court which could have been utilized to decide genuine and urgent matters. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

Summary: Background:Dr. Sohail Hassan Khan, Muhammad Javed Nayyer, and Dr. Shamas-ul-Hassan, former officials of the Poultry Research Institute at Rawalpindi, appealed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. They were implicated in irregularities related to procurement and distribution of poultry birds for earthquake relief efforts in 2005.---Issues:Validity of departmental proceedings against the petitioners following their exoneration from criminal charges.Appropriateness of penalties imposed on the petitioners.Alleged lack of proportionality in the penalties.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court upheld the departmental proceedings against the petitioners, emphasizing that exoneration from criminal charges does not shield them from disciplinary action.The Court found the petitioners guilty of financial mismanagement and abuse of their official positions.Penalties imposed on the petitioners were deemed appropriate given the seriousness of the offenses.The principle of proportionality was considered irrelevant in cases involving financial corruption and breach of public trust.The Court rejected arguments regarding the need for additional evidence or show cause for penalties imposed during the de novo inquiry.Restoration of original penalties did not constitute enhancement as it was part of an ongoing process.---Citations/Precedents:Punjab Employees Efficiency Discipline & Accountability Act, 2006Principle of proportionality in disciplinary matters

Summary: Background:Ajmir Shah, an ex-Sepoy with Bajour Scouts of the Frontier Corps, was dismissed from service under Section 8(c) of the Frontier Corps Ordinance, 1959.He waited over four years to file a departmental appeal, citing the outcome of a colleague's service appeal as the reason for the delay.His departmental appeal was rejected as time-barred, prompting him to appeal to the Federal Service Tribunal.---Issues:Whether Shah's delay in filing the departmental appeal was justified.Whether the appellate authority had the power to extend the filing period for the appeal.Whether Shah's reliance on a colleague's successful appeal was a valid reason for the delay.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court upheld the rejection of Shah's appeal, finding that his delay in filing the departmental appeal was not justified.The Court noted that the Frontier Corps Rules, 1961, required appeals to be filed within one month of being informed of the order, with provisions for extending the deadline in unavoidable circumstances.Shah's reliance on a colleague's appeal outcome was deemed insufficient justification for his delay.The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures and rules for filing appeals.The Court distinguished the present case from precedent cited by Shah's counsel, as the rules in question were different.---Citations/Precedents:Usman Ali Chhachhar vs. Moula Bukhsh Chhachhar (2019 SCMR 2043) = [2020 PLC (CS) 34]Muhammad Hanif Abbasi vs. Imran Khan Niazi (PLD 2018 SC 189)Shahida Bibi vs. Habib Bank Limited (PLD 2016 SC 995)

Summary: Background:Allah Rakha, the petitioner, was serving as Civil Nazir with the Senior Civil Judge Sialkot when discrepancies were discovered during a routine audit. He was found to have misappropriated various amounts totaling Rs. 36,00,000. Upon being confronted with his misconduct, he returned Rs. 7,00,000 but failed to clear the remaining liability. Consequently, he faced trial before the Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Gujranwala and was convicted. ---Issues:The main issue is the appropriateness of the sentence imposed on Allah Rakha under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and whether it should be reduced.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:After careful consideration, the court dismissed the petition but reduced the sentence imposed under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, from ten years to five years, which is equivalent to the sentence imposed on coordinate charges. The court took into account that Allah Rakha had been facing the consequences of his misconduct since 2015, had made some repayment, and had subsequently been dismissed from service. While acknowledging that individuals within the justice system have a heavier responsibility for integrity, the court deemed the reduction in sentence to be fair given the circumstances. The reduced sentence would run concurrently with the sentences for coordinate charges, including the pre-trial period.---Citations/Precedents:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.Section 382-B of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with the benefit of cumulative sentences.

Summary: Background:The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa appealed against a judgment of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, which modified the penalty imposed on Shahid, a police constable, from dismissal to withholding of increments for a period of two years due to unauthorized absence from duty.---Issues:Whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to modify the penalty imposed by the department.Whether the penalty modification was justified.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying the penalty imposed by the department. The respondent's unauthorized absence from duty for six months and three days was a serious offense, and the penalty of dismissal was appropriate.The Court found that the Tribunal's decision to modify the penalty lacked legal basis and was arbitrary. It emphasized that in a disciplined force, such as the police department, prolonged unauthorized absence cannot be tolerated. Therefore, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, reinstating the original penalty of dismissal from service.

Summary: [Service matters (Dismissal-Termination)] the petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court while calling in question the termination letter dated 26.02.2019 issued by the Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology (hereinafter referred to as University), relieving her from the services of University with retrospective effect i.e. 20.10.2018, which according to the petitioner is without lawful authority and of no legal effect.---We are not satisfied with the assertion of the respondent-university on the aforesaid analogy, for the reason that Fundamental Rule 54, is clear in its terms, dealing with the reinstatement of the employee consequent to setting aside of his dismissal/removal from service, the entitlement of the employee, to have the period of his absence from his service treated as "on duty" is a statutory consequence of his being reinstated on the merits--This being the legal position of the case, the instant petition is allowed with no order as to costs by holding that the impugned termination order dated 26.02.2019 issued by respondent-university is without legal consequence. Thus, the service of the petitioner is reinstated with effect from termination of her service i.e. 14.02.2019. The respondents are directed to grant her service benefits for the intervening period in accordance with law, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.