Summary: (1) Standard of proof in a departmental inquiry and criminal trial is different. (2) Though the Inquiry Officer is not a judicial officer, but the procedure of inquiry should be followed (3) Inquiry should not be conducted in a perfunctory manner; the stake of the employee is much higher than the employer (4) If the employee is declared guilty without fair trial, the ultimate sufferer would be the employee.

Summary: (a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)--- ----S. 2-A omitted by Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2010---Cantonment Board employees---Status after omission of deeming provision---Federal Service Tribunal jurisdiction---Scope---Respondent, an employee/driver of Cantonment Board Sialkot, challenged major penalty of discharge from service before Federal Service Tribunal---Petitioner objected that respondent was not a civil servant but a Cantonment Board servant governed by Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954---Held, that after discontinuation/omission of S.2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, employees of Cantonment Boards cannot institute service appeals before Federal Service Tribunal regarding their terms and conditions of service---Federal Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide appeal of respondent. Cited Case: • Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC 602 (b) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)--- ----S. 2(1)(b)---Civil servant---Cantonment Board employee---Distinction between “service of Pakistan” and “civil servant”---Held, that every civil servant is in service of Pakistan, but every person in service of Pakistan is not a civil servant---Legal status of civil servant flows from S.2(1)(b) of Civil Servants Act, 1973, requiring that person must be member of All Pakistan Service, member of civil service of Federation, or holder of civil post in connection with affairs of Federation---Cantonment Board employees, being governed by separate statutory rules, do not become civil servants merely because Cantonment Board is a statutory corporate/local body. Cited Case: • Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC 602 (c) Cantonments Act (II of 1924)--- ----S. 280---Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954---Cantonment servants---Terms and conditions of service---Statutory service framework---Federal Government is empowered under S.280 of Cantonments Act, 1924 to frame rules for appointment, control, supervision, conditions of service, transfer, suspension, removal, dismissal and punishment of Cantonment servants---Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954 regulate service of Cantonment Board employees, including misconduct, penalties, inquiry procedure, appeal and hearing of appeals---Held, that terms and conditions of Cantonment Board employees are governed by their own statutory rules and not by Civil Servants Act, 1973---Limited application of Fundamental Rules, Supplementary Rules and Revised Leave Rules does not convert Cantonment servants into civil servants. (d) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 212---Federal Service Tribunal---Jurisdiction confined to civil servants---Employees of corporate/statutory/local bodies---Effect---Service Tribunal is primary and exclusive forum for service-related disputes of civil servants only---Employees of any authority, corporation, body or organization established under Federal or Provincial law, or owned/controlled by Government, cannot be conferred status of civil servants merely on that basis---Held, that Federal Service Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over Cantonment Board employee after omission of S.2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973---Impugned judgment of Tribunal was without jurisdiction and coram non judice. (e) Service law--- ----Cantonment Board employee---Statutory rules of service---Available remedy---High Court writ jurisdiction---Held, that where an employee is governed by statutory rules of service and is not a civil servant, proper remedy against violation of such rules or departmental action, including penalty/punishment, lies before High Court under Art.199 of Constitution after availing departmental remedy where provided---Cantonment Board employee may file appeal under Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954 and, if dissatisfied, may invoke constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Cited Case: • Sabir Iqbal v. Cantonment Board Peshawar PLD 2019 SC 189 (f) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)--- ----S. 2-A---Past proceedings before omission---Cantonment Board employees treated as civil servants under deeming clause---Effect limited to pending/old matters---Where dispute originated before omission of S.2-A, employee was treated as civil servant for that pending matter under deeming clause then in force---Held, that such position did not continue after omission of S.2-A by Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2010---Post-omission, Cantonment Board employees cannot approach Federal Service Tribunal. Cited Case: • Ghulam Rasool v. Secretary Defence 2012 PLC (CS) 1271 (g) Jurisdiction--- ----Want of jurisdiction---Coram non judice---Duty of Court/Tribunal to decide jurisdiction first---Scope---Question of jurisdiction was specifically pleaded before Federal Service Tribunal, namely, that respondent was not a civil servant and his service was governed by Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954---Tribunal neither adverted to jurisdictional objection nor rendered findings thereon---Held, that jurisdiction is command conferred by law and Constitution; no Court or Tribunal may decide a matter beyond its jurisdiction---Want of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent or acquiescence---Court/Tribunal is duty-bound to decide jurisdictional objection at earliest stage before proceeding to merits---Impugned order passed without jurisdiction was coram non judice. Cited Case: • Jameel Qadir v. Government of Balochistan 2023 SCMR 1919 / 2023 SCP 274 (h) Per incuriam--- ----Decision rendered in ignorance of relevant statute or case-law---Effect---Held, that where a Court decides a matter in ignorance or forgetfulness of relevant statute or binding precedent, such decision may be treated as rendered per incuriam---Tribunal’s failure to consider statutory framework governing Cantonment servants and settled law on its jurisdiction rendered its approach legally unsustainable. Cited Authorities: • Huddersfield Police Authority v. Watson 1947 2 All ER 193 • Morelle Ltd. v. Wakeling [1955] 2 QB 379 • Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. 1944 KB 718 (i) Departmental proceedings--- ----Major penalty of discharge from service---Office order of competent authority directing de novo inquiry---Effect---Federal Service Tribunal had set aside dismissal and appellate orders while directing de novo inquiry on strength of office order dated 06.06.2023 issued by Assistant Director General, Ministry of Defence, whereby competent authority had annulled dismissal/appellate orders and directed de novo inquiry---Before Supreme Court, officials of Cantonment Board conceded and assured compliance with said office order---Held, despite Federal Service Tribunal lacking jurisdiction, Cantonment Board was bound by its own competent authority’s order and was directed to conduct de novo inquiry after providing fair opportunity of defence. (j) Service law--- ----De novo inquiry---Fair opportunity of defence---Time-bound direction---Cantonment Board officials undertook before Supreme Court to comply with office order dated 06.06.2023---Held, that de novo inquiry shall be conducted and completed within three months from receipt of judgment after providing fair opportunity of defence to respondent---If respondent remained aggrieved by result of inquiry and decision of competent authority, he could avail appeal under Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954 and thereafter approach High Court under Art.199 of Constitution, if so advised. Disposition: Civil petition was converted into appeal and allowed. Judgment dated 20.11.2023 passed by Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No.810(R) CS/2019 was set aside as being without jurisdiction and service appeal before Tribunal was dismissed. Cantonment Board was directed to comply with office order dated 06.06.2023 and conduct de novo inquiry within three months after providing fair opportunity of defence. Respondent was left to avail remedy under Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954 and, if dissatisfied, invoke writ jurisdiction of High Court.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 175 & 199---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3---Intra Court Appeal---Pensionary benefits---Invoking jurisdiction of Courts---Habitual litigant, allegation of---Appellant / retired civil servant was aggrieved of withholding of his pensionary benefits by authorities---Plea raised by authorities was that appellant / retired civil servant was a habitual litigant---Validity---Right to pension flows from statute and the terms of service, not from subjective assessment by authorities, of employee’s litigious conduct---Act of approaching Courts for redressal of grievances cannot be equated with misconduct warranting forfeiture of pensionary entitlements---Authorities failed to provide any substantive explanation for withholding pension, coupled with reliance on irrelevant and extraneous factors, which reflected complete disregard of its legal obligations and rendered its report devoid of evidentiary or legal value---Judicial forums exist precisely to examine and rectify allegations of illegality, arbitrariness or denial of rights---Courts are guardians of constitutional guarantees and it is their solemn obligation to hear grievances of aggrieved persons and to adjudicate them in accordance with law---Label of “habitual litigant” could not be employed to deprive a citizen of his pensionary benefits, nor could it relieve public authority of its duty to act fairly promptly, and in compliance with legal framework---Appellant / retired civil servant acted within his lawful rights and the matter raised concerned pensionary benefits, entitlements that were recognized as vested and enforceable---Division Bench of High Court set aside the judgment passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court as the same was not justified---Division Bench of High Court directed the authorities to forthwith process and release pensionary benefits of appellant/retired civil servant, in accordance with law, from the date the benefits had become due, along with all arrears accruing thereon---Intra Court Appeal was allowed, in circumstances. 2014 SCMR 1689; Surah Al-Baqrah (2:188); Surah Al-Nisa (4:58); PLD 2014 SC 32 and Surah al-Duha (93:10) rel. (b) Civil service--- ----Pensionary right---Scope---Pension is neither a privilege nor a matter of grace but a vested and enforceable right of an employee who has served the State in accordance with law. Appellant in Person. Adnan Bashir for Respondents. Azmat Bashir Tarrar, A.A.G. Hashim Khan, Advocate General Office. Adnan, A.D. Law, FAB. Date of hearing: 11th November, 2025.

Summary: (1) Acquittal in technicalities/compromise/botched up investigation does not create vested right for reinstatement (2) The doctrine of disciplined force requires dynamic accountability to ensure public trust (3) The integrity of a disciplined force should be untarnished (4) The criminal and disciplinary proceedings have distinctive characteristics in civil servant laws

Summary: (a) Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)--- ----S. 31---Managerial decisions by employer---Unfair labour practices asserted by workers---National Industrial Relations Commission, jurisdiction of---Petition under S. 31 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012---Maintainability---Petitioners, being employees of Quetta Electrical Supply Company / QESCO), invoked S.31 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, alleging that the respondents / QESCO had committed gross unfair labour practices by unilaterally scrapping the decades-old binding "Commercial Procedure" and imposing an entirely new feeder-wise duty system---Validity---The jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission (‘the Commission’) under S.31 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (‘the IRA, 2012’) is limited to redressing “unfair labour practices”---The expression “unfair labour practice” is a term of art and cannot be invoked merely because employees are aggrieved by a managerial decision---Assignment of duties, preparation of duty rosters, transfers, postings and internal administrative arrangements are purely managerial prerogatives and do not constitute unfair labour practice unless they are proved to be actuated by malice, victimization or made with the object of punishing workers for trade union activities---Thus, present petition was not maintainable under S.31 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012---Petition, being non-maintainable, was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)--- ----S.31---Managerial decisions by employer---Unfair labour practices---Scope---National Industrial Relations Commission, jurisdiction of---Scope---Petitioners being employees of Quetta Electrical Supply Company / QESCO invoked S.31 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, alleging that the respondents / QESCO had committed gross unfair labour practices by unilaterally scrapping the decades-old binding "Commercial Procedure" and imposing an entirely new feeder-wise duty system---Validity---In the present case, the petitioners failed to bring their grievance within any specific entry of the IRA, 2012---The change from an old commercial procedure to a feeder-wise system was, admittedly , aimed at improving recovery, reducing line losses and curbing power theft objectives that were in public interest and fell squarely within the legitimate administrative domain of the employer---No material had been placed on record to even prima facie establish that the new system had been introduced to victimize the petitioners on account of their trade union membership or activities---Petitioners failed to prove any violation of settled terms and conditions of service---The so-called “Commercial Procedure” was never a statutory service rule or part of any settlement of the IRA 2012; it was an internal working arrangement that the management was competent to revise in larger public interest---Efficiency-driven administrative changes cannot be challenged as unfair labour practice---Petitioners failed to point out violation of any specific clause of QESCO's SOPs---Mere assertion that SOPs had been violated was not enough---No unfair labour practice within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 had been made out---Petition under S.31 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, being non-maintainable and merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances. (c) Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)--- ----S. 31---Managerial decisions by employer---Unfair labour practices---Scope---Petitioners being employees of Quetta Electrical Supply Company / QESCO invoked S.31 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, alleging that the respondents / QESCO had committed gross unfair labour practices by unilaterally scrapping the decades-old binding "Commercial Procedure" and imposing an entirely new feeder-wise duty system at the behest of a retired officer, and with the active connivance of the Hydro Union---Validity---The allegation of involvement of a outsider (retired officer) or “connivance” of the Hydro Union remained unsubstantiated and hearsay---Even if a retired officer or a Collective Bargaining Agent / office-bearer gave suggestions, it did not convert a lawful administrative decision into an unfair labour practice---Petitioners’ grievance that high-loss feeders had been allotted to non-favoured employees was essentially an allegation of discriminatory treatment---However, no individual petitioner had come forward with specific evidence that he had been singled out for adverse treatment because of his non-affiliation with the CBA or due to trade union rivalry---General and vague allegations of discrimination do not satisfy the threshold required to invoke S.31 of the IRA, 2012---No unfair labour practice within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 had been made out---Petition under S.31 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, being non- maintainable and merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances. (d) Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012)--- ----S.31---Order(s) by employer requiring workers to work on holidays---Unfair labour practices---Scope---National Industrial Relations Commission, jurisdiction of---Scope---Petitioners being employees of Quetta Electrical Supply Company / QESCO invoked S.31 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, alleging that the respondents / QESCO had committed gross unfair labour practices by compelling performance of duty on national holidays (Saturdays)---Validity---Admittedly, the QESCO is an essential service providing continuous electricity supply---West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and the Electricity Act, 1910 recognize the right of the employer to require employees to perform emergency or essential duties even on declared holidays, subject to payment of overtime or compensatory leave---The impugned orders do not mandate routine duty on every Saturday; they only require presence in case of emergency or for anti-theft operations---Such directions are lawful and cannot be termed unfair labour practice---No unfair labour practice within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 had been made out, however, National Industrial Relations Commission , to remove genuine apprehension of the petitioners, passed certain directions to respondents such as that it would not require any employee to perform routine duties on a declared public holiday except in cases of genuine emergency or essential anti-theft operations---Petition under S.31 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, being non-maintainable and merit-less, was dismissed accordingly. Azam Jan Zarkoon for Petitioners. Mirza Luqman Masood and Mushtaque Hussain Shah, Director Legal QESCO for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th November, 2025.

Summary: (a) Civil service- -Departmental proceedings-Dismissal from service-Principle-Major penalty of dismissal from service cannot be awarded without conducting regular inquiry or providing opportunity of being heard to a civil servant, as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Faisal Ali v. District Police Officer, Gujrat and another 2025 SCMR 92; Usman Ghani v. The Chief Post Master, GPO, Karachi and others 2022 SCMR 745; Malik Muhammad Ramzan v. Commissioner Sargodha Division and others CPLA No.2768-L/2022; Naseeb Khan v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore and another 2008 SCMR 1369; Raja Muhammad Shahid v. Inspector General of Police and others 2023 SCMR 1135 and Federation of Pakistan through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue FBR House, Islamabad and others v. Zahid Malik 2023 SCMR 603 rel. (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)- Hafiz Abdul Rauf v. PASSCO Lahore and others CPLA No. 1792-L/2017 rel. Assisted by: Ms. Zainab Bashir, Judicial Law Clerk, Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 28.03.2023 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (Karachi Bench) in Appeal No. 61(K)CS of 2018). (a) Civil service--- ----Departmental proceedings---Dismissal from service---Principle---Major penalty of dismissal from service cannot be awarded without conducting regular inquiry or providing opportunity of being heard to a civil servant, as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Faisal Ali v. District Police Officer, Gujrat and another 2025 SCMR 92; Usman Ghani v. The Chief Post Master, GPO, Karachi and others 2022 SCMR 745; Malik Muhammad Ramzan v. Commissioner Sargodha Division and others CPLA No.2768-L/2022; Naseeb Khan v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore and another 2008 SCMR 1369; Raja Muhammad Shahid v. Inspector General of Police and others 2023 SCMR 1135 and Federation of Pakistan through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue FBR House, Islamabad and others v. Zahid Malik 2023 SCMR 603 rel. (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)--- ----S. 4---Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, R.5---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 10A & 212 (3)---Dismissal from service---Principle of natural service---Regular inquiry, non-conducting of---Service Tribunal partly accepted appeal of civil servant / respondent and converted punishment of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement---Validity---While imposing any major or minor penalty regular inquiry has to be conducted to establish charges against a civil servant, unless it is dispensed with, while disclosing sufficient reason in writing in terms of Rule 5(iii) of Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---Law does not permit dispensation of regular inquiry even in cases where minor penalty is imposed unless there are sufficient reasons disclosed by competent authority for dispensation of regular inquiry---In order to ensure transparency and fair trial in departmental proceedings against a civil servant, adherence to law, rules and procedure prescribed therein must be made in letter and spirit---Fair trial is sine qua non as guaranteed under Article 10(A) of the Constitution, which has to be read into every statute, including Civil Servants Act, 1973, and cannot be ignored under any circumstances, irrespective of the fact that penalty imposed against a civil servant pursuant to such proceedings is major or minor in nature---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Service Tribunal which did not suffer from any factual error or legal infirmity---Authorities failed to raise any substantial question of law of public importance in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Hafiz Abdul Rauf v. PASSCO Lahore and others CPLA No. 1792-L/2017 rel. Jawad Mahmood Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (Via V.L. Lahore). Nemo for Respondents. Assisted by: Ms. Zainab Bashir, Judicial Law Clerk, Supreme Court of Pakistan. Date of hearing: 18th November, 2025.

Summary: (1) Judgment in rem is not only conclusive between the contesting parties but also as against the world (2) Clarificatory order due to wrong interpretation of the judgment of this Court against deputationists by the government departments

Summary: Reading down the ambiguous power of Review under Section 7-A of KPK Service Tribunal Act 1974 in the larger interest of Civil Servants of KPK to preserve the right to fair trial and due process

Summary: (a) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act (IV of 2010)- -Ss. 3, 4 & Preamble-Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, Rr. 2, 3 & 9-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199-Constitutional petition-Misconduct-Disciplinary proceedings-Harassment at workplace-Proceedings-Object, purpose and scope-Petitioner / civil servant was aggrieved of show cause notice issued to him regarding departmental inquiry on the allegation of sexual harassment of a female employee-Validity-Proceedings initiated under provisions of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 are a matter between Federal Government in its capacity as an employer and a civil servant in his/her capacity as an employee-Purpose of such proceedings is to ensure that an employee is abiding by the terms and conditions of service prescribed for purposes of his/her conduct in discharge of his/her duties-Object and scope of Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 is altogether different as the rationale for enactment of such law, as explained in its Preamble, is to provide for protection of women from harassment at workplace-Set of facts on the basis of which a complaint was founded against accused under provisions of Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 needed to be inquired into, which if proved, consequences and penalties prescribed under Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 were to flow toward petitioner / civil servant-Proceedings under Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 are adversarial in nature, where a complainant makes allegations against an accused and the same have to be proved on the basis of cogent evidence-Penalties prescribed in terms of S. 4 of Protection Against Harassment of Women At the Workplace Act, 2010 may be similar to, or overlap with, the penalties prescribed in terms of R. 4 of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, and the same has no bearing on the object, purpose and effect of the proceedings under Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 on one hand and Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, on the other-High Court declined to interfere in show cause notice issued to petitioner / civil servant-Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Nadia Naz v. The President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 2023 SC 588; Raja Tanveer Safdar v. Mrs. Tehmina Yasmeen and others PLD 2024 SC 795; Faraz Naveed v. District Police Officer Gujrat 2022 SCMR 1770; Imran Amir v. Mst. Ismat Bibi and another 2023 CLC 1059; Dr. Sohail Hassan Khan v. Director General (Research), Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Punjab 2020 SCMR 1708; Asif Mehmood Butt v. Regional CEO, NBP 2011 PLC (C.S.) 1462; Falak Sher v. Inspector General Police, Lahore 2005 SCMR 1020; DIG of Police v. Anees ur Rehman Khan PLD 1985 SC 134; Syed Muhammad Iqbal Jafri v. Registrar, Lahore High Court 2004 PLC (C.S.) 809; Saifur Rahman v Chairman, National Accountability Bureau PLD 2022 SC 409; Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 1995 SCMR 626; The State v. Jehangir Akhtar 2018 SCMR 733; I.A. Sherwani v. Government of Pakistan 1991 SCMR 1041; Pir Muhammad v. Government of Balochistan 2007 SCMR 54 and Muhammad Hassan Ullah v. Chief Secretary Government of Balochistan 2025 SCMR 134 ref. (b) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973- -R.3-Disciplinary proceedings-Scope-Proceedings under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 are not necessarily adversarial in nature-Such proceedings are meant to confirm and ensure that terms and conditions of service prescribed for purposes of Civil Servants Act, 1973 including requirements as to conduct and efficiency of an employee, are being complied with.