Over the last five years, the law on misconduct and penalties in civil service has evolved to emphasize procedural fairness, proportionality of penalties, and the need for detailed reasoning in disciplinary actions. Authorities are granted discretion but must exercise it judiciously, ensuring that decisions are fair and transparent. The courts have reinforced the importance of considering the broader context, including service records, while maintaining a stringent approach towards corruption and serious misconduct. This evolution reflects a balanced approach, aiming to uphold integrity and accountability in the civil service while protecting the rights of employees.
Key Takeaways from the Cases on Misconduct and Penalties in Civil Service
- Adherence to Procedural Fairness:
- Provision of Inquiry Reports: Ensuring that accused employees receive all relevant documents, including inquiry reports, along with show-cause notices is crucial for maintaining procedural fairness.
- Due Process Rights: Employees must be given adequate opportunities to defend themselves. This includes issuing charge sheets, allowing responses, and conducting fair inquiries.
- Proportionality of Penalties:
- Consistency with Misconduct Severity: Penalties must be proportional to the severity of the misconduct. Dismissal for minor infractions is considered excessive, whereas severe misconduct, such as corruption, justifies major penalties like dismissal.
- Consideration of Service Record: Long and unblemished service records are considered when determining penalties, often resulting in reduced punishments for first-time or less severe offenses.
- Authority and Discretion:
- Reopening Inquiries: Authorities have the right to reopen inquiries if new evidence emerges, provided that previous inquiries were not closed after a full investigation.
- Modification of Penalties: Service Tribunals and higher authorities can modify penalties, but such modifications must be justified with valid reasons and should align with principles of justice and proportionality.
- Natural Justice and Transparency:
- Right to a Fair Hearing: Employees must be given fair hearings, including the opportunity to present their case and respond to allegations.
- Avoiding Summary Decisions: Hasty and slipshod decisions lacking detailed reasoning are discouraged. Authorities must provide detailed justifications for their decisions to withstand judicial scrutiny.
Evolution of the Law in the Last Five Years
- Increased Emphasis on Procedural Fairness:
- The courts have consistently emphasized the importance of providing all relevant documents and conducting fair inquiries. This ensures that employees have the opportunity to fully defend themselves against allegations.
- Stricter Standards for Major Penalties:
- Major penalties, such as dismissal, require thorough and fair inquiries. The courts have invalidated penalties where procedural lapses occurred or where inquiries were not conducted properly.
- Balancing Authority Discretion with Fairness:
- While authorities have the discretion to reopen inquiries and issue penalties, this must be done within the bounds of fairness and legal norms. The courts have upheld the need for detailed reasoning and proportionality in disciplinary actions.
- Recognition of Service Record and Context:
- Courts have shown leniency in cases where employees have long, unblemished service records or where mitigating circumstances exist. This trend reflects a more nuanced approach to disciplinary actions, considering the broader context of each case.
- Evolution in Handling Corruption and Serious Misconduct:
- There has been a clear stance against corruption and serious misconduct, with the courts upholding severe penalties for such offenses. This reflects a zero-tolerance approach towards corruption in the civil service, reinforcing the need for integrity and accountability.
The law on misconduct and penalties in civil service, particularly within the context of the cases from the last 5 years illustrates the stringent measures employed to ensure discipline and integrity among civil servants. Misconduct in civil service encompasses a range of actions that violate the ethical and procedural norms expected of public officials. The penalties for such misconduct can vary significantly, from dismissal from service to reduction in pay scale, depending on the gravity of the offense and the impact on the department or public trust.
Case Analysis of these cases is as below:
Manzar Abbas vs. District Police Officer, Sargodha (2024 PLC(CS) 45)
Law Involved: Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Police Rules.
Facts: The appellants, while in police uniform, were found travelling in a private car on a motorway without informing or seeking permission from the appropriate authority. They were arrested following a complaint to the Motorway Police.
Judgment: The Supreme Court, per Yahya Afridi, J. (Majority view), upheld the dismissal from service. The petitioners’ actions were deemed gross misconduct, involving unauthorized travel and abuse of official position for extortion. The gravity of their misconduct justified a robust disciplinary response to deter similar future conduct. Conversely, the minority view by Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, J., highlighted procedural lapses in the inquiry, suggesting that the dismissal was unwarranted given the lack of cross-examination and evidence collection.
Ali Ashtar Naqvi vs. Lahore High Court, Lahore (2024 PLC(CS) 620)
Law Involved: Section 6(1) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999.
Facts: The appellant, a Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, tendered his resignation after the Inquiry Officer recommended his dismissal for misconduct. He later contended that his resignation was involuntary, citing threats to his life.
Judgment: The Punjab Subordinate Judicial Service Tribunal concluded that the resignation was voluntary and upheld the dismissal. The definitions of “resignation” in law dictionaries emphasize intentional and voluntary relinquishment of office, and the appellant’s delayed attempt to withdraw his resignation undermined his claim of involuntariness.
Gulzar Hussain vs. The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore (2024 PLC(CS) 57)
Law Involved: Rule 2(e) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999.
Facts: The appellant, a Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, was accused of receiving illegal gratification. While the prosecution established his interaction with a litigant, it failed to prove the receipt of illegal gratification.
Judgment: The Service Tribunal converted the penalty from dismissal to a reduction of three stages in the pay scale. The interaction with the litigant was deemed misconduct under Rule 2(e), but the lack of concrete evidence of illegal gratification led to a lesser penalty.
Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services, D.G. Khan vs. Nadeem Raza (2023 SCMR 803)
Law Involved: The Service Tribunal Act, with a focus on proportionality and the scope of judicial review.
Facts: The respondent admitted to misappropriating Rs. 1,24,305/-, which he delayed depositing into the Government exchequer.
Judgment: The Supreme Court reinstated the department’s penalty of removal from service. The Court emphasized that the duration and amount of misappropriation were irrelevant; the act itself constituted misconduct warranting severe penalty. The Tribunal’s reduction of the penalty was deemed unsustainable due to its failure to justify the reduction against the test of proportionality.
Ijaz Badshah vs. Secretary, Establishment Division (2023 SCMR 407)
Law Involved: Judicial review of penalties and the principle of proportionality.
Facts: The case involved gross misconduct, and the Supreme Court examined whether the punishment was proportional to the misconduct.
Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the department’s penalty, underscoring the importance of maintaining discipline through deterrent punishments. The Court reiterated that the gravity of the misconduct and the moral culpability associated with it guided the proportionality test.
Chief Engineer, Gujranwala Electric Power Company (GEPCO), Gujranwala vs. Khalid Mehmood (2023 SCMR 291)
Law Involved: Section 42 of the relevant employment laws governing civil servants.
Facts: The appellant challenged the penalty imposed by the department before the Labour Court. The primary issue was whether acceptance of legal dues by the employee estopped him from challenging his dismissal.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that mere acceptance of legal dues does not constitute a waiver of the right to challenge the dismissal. An employee can still seek redress if the charge of misconduct has not been established or if the termination is found to be mala fide. The Court emphasized that acceptance of dues should not automatically be interpreted as severance of the employment relationship, and each case must be determined based on its specific facts and records.
Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services, D.G. Khan vs. Nadeem Raza (2023 PLC(CS) 1119)
Law Involved: Provisions related to misconduct under civil service rules, particularly concerning misappropriation.
Facts: The respondent misappropriated Rs. 1,24,305/- by delaying the deposit of collected electricity bill payments. Despite admitting the misappropriation, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from removal from service to a reduction in pay scale.
Judgment: The Supreme Court reinstated the original penalty of removal from service. It emphasized that the duration or amount of misappropriation is irrelevant; the act itself constitutes sufficient misconduct. The Court criticized the Tribunal for not justifying its reduction of the penalty, asserting that such interference must pass the test of proportionality and reasonableness. The penalty must reflect the gravity of the misconduct and moral culpability involved.
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Health, Peshawar vs. Dr. Liaqat Ali (2023 PLC(CS) 794)
Law Involved: Section 7(1) regarding the Tribunal’s power to modify penalties.
Facts: The Provincial Service Tribunal reduced the penalty of removal from service to compulsory retirement, considering the respondent’s 24 years of service.
Judgment: The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal’s decision, stating that penalty imposition is within the competent authority’s domain. The Court emphasized that conversion of penalties requires strong, justifiable reasons. The Tribunal’s leniency based solely on years of service was insufficient. The Court reiterated that quantum of punishment must be left with the competent authority, barring any compelling reasons to interfere.
Ijaz Badshah vs. Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad (2023 PLC(CS) 694)
Law Involved: Judicial review principles concerning penalties and gross misconduct.
Facts: The case involved gross misconduct, and the Supreme Court reviewed the penalty’s proportionality and reasonableness.
Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the penalty of removal from service. It underscored that deterrent punishment is essential not only to match the gravity of the offense but also to serve as a preventive measure. The Court noted that judicial review of penalties must consider the gravity of the charges and that conversion to lesser penalties should be cautiously exercised to maintain discipline within the civil service.
Divisional Superintendent Postal Services Jhang vs. Siddique Ahmed (2023 PLC(CS) 440)
Law Involved: Provisions addressing corruption, misconduct, and inefficiency.
Facts: The respondents misappropriated money orders by forging payees’ signatures. The Service Tribunal converted the penalty from dismissal to withholding an increment.
Judgment: The Supreme Court reinstated the dismissal penalty, emphasizing that misappropriation, regardless of the amount, constitutes a breach of trust. The lenient view taken by the Tribunal was unwarranted, as such misconduct necessitates strict penalties to uphold the integrity of public service.
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs. Nargis Jamal, Ex-DEO (Female) Karak (2023 PLC(CS) 283)
Law Involved: Relevant civil service rules on absence from duty and unauthorized travel.
Facts: The respondent traveled outside Pakistan without prior approval from the competent authority, resulting in compulsory retirement. The Service Tribunal modified this penalty to a reduction to a lower substantive post.
Judgment: The Supreme Court reinstated the penalty of compulsory retirement. The Court emphasized that the respondent failed to provide any justification or documentation to counter the charges. The Tribunal’s decision to reduce the penalty lacked analytical justification and ignored the due process followed by the competent authority. The imposition of penalties is within the domain of the competent authority when misconduct is proven through proper inquiry.
Federation of Pakistan vs. Muhammad Farhan (2023 PLC(CS) 198)
Law Involved: General principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings.
Facts: The case involved the imposition of a major penalty for misconduct. The Tribunal was required to ensure that the charges were proved through a proper inquiry conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice.
Judgment: The Supreme Court highlighted the duty of courts and tribunals to thoroughly examine whether the charges against a delinquent employee were substantiated by a proper inquiry. Any lapses in adhering to natural justice principles could invalidate the imposition of penalties.
Abdul Ghani vs. Hon’ble Chief Justice (2023 PLC(CS) 43)
Law Involved: Rule 3 concerning the efficiency and discipline of judicial officers.
Facts: The appellant, a judicial officer, was compulsorily retired for inefficiently handling cases, which amounted to misconduct.
Judgment: The High Court upheld the compulsory retirement, noting the appellant’s failure to justify his actions and the evidence of negligence and mala fide conduct. The decision underscored that judicial officers are held to high standards of competence
and integrity, and gross inefficiency or misconduct warrants severe penalties.
Tahir Jamil Butt vs. Lahore High Court, Lahore (2023 PLC(CS) 921)
Law Involved: Section 6(1) regarding misconduct and penalties for judicial officers.
Facts: The appellant, a judicial officer, was dismissed from service for serious misconduct. The Service Tribunal maintained the penalty, emphasizing the severity of the charges.
Judgment: The Tribunal’s decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, which reiterated that the imposition of penalties lies within the authority of the inquiry officer. The Tribunal can only interfere in the quantum of punishment if there are strong justifiable reasons. The seriousness of the misconduct justified the dismissal.
Muhammad Fayaz vs. President, Zarai Taraqiati Bank, Islamabad (2023 PLC(CS) 650)
Law Involved: Articles 10A & 199 of the Constitution concerning due process and fair trial.
Facts: The petitioner was dismissed from service on allegations of misconduct. The High Court set aside the dismissal, citing a lack of fair inquiry and due process.
Judgment: The High Court emphasized the necessity of a fair trial and due process in disciplinary proceedings. The inquiry must be conducted impartially, and the employee must be given a fair opportunity to defend against the allegations. The dismissal was reinstated due to procedural deficiencies.
Adam Khan vs. Bank of Punjab (2023 PLC(CS) 85)
Law Involved: Sections 7 & 11 of the relevant employment laws, and Articles 17 & 199 of the Constitution.
Facts: The petitioner was terminated for forming an association of bank officials. The High Court examined the termination in the context of the right of association and principles of natural justice.
Judgment: The High Court set aside the termination, ruling it as a violation of the petitioner’s constitutional right to association. The court stressed that termination on such grounds must adhere to natural justice and due process principles.
Muhammad Kamran Khan vs. Government of the Punjab (2023 PLC(CS) 1209)
Law Involved: Sections 3 & 4 of the relevant employment laws, and Article 199 of the Constitution.
Facts: The petitioner, a contract employee, was dismissed for misconduct. The High Court ruled on the maintainability of a constitutional petition by a contract employee.
Judgment: The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that contract employees are debarred from approaching the court under constitutional jurisdiction for service matters. Their remedy lies in filing a suit for damages for breach of contract.
Mozammil Iqbal vs. Deputy Director (HR) Punjab Emergency Service, Lahore (2023 PLC(CS) 979)
Law Involved: Sections 2(n), 2(k), 5 & 9 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, and Punjab Emergency Leave Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 2007.
Facts: The petitioner was removed from service for inefficiency and misconduct, with a focus on unsatisfactory performance evaluations.
Judgment: The High Court ruled that major penalties, such as removal from service, require a regular inquiry. The court found the proceedings deficient and set aside the removal, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness and adherence to statutory requirements.
Mozammil Iqbal vs. Deputy Director (HR) Punjab Emergency Service, Lahore (2023 PLC(CS) 979)
Laws Involved: Sections 2(n), 2(k), 3, 4, 5 & 9 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, and Punjab Emergency Leave Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 2007, Rr. 4 & 7.
Facts: The petitioner was removed from service for unsatisfactory performance and allegations of misconduct, including irresponsible and negligent attitudes towards his job.
Judgment: The Lahore High Court set aside the removal, reinstating the petitioner. It emphasized that serious allegations of misconduct require a regular inquiry, which was not properly conducted in this case. The Court held that the petitioner should be proceeded against under the relevant rules with a proper inquiry, highlighting the necessity of adhering to procedural fairness.
Naveed Nazeer vs. National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) (2023 PLC(CS) 1330)
Laws Involved: National Database and Registration Authority Employees’ (Service) Regulations, 2002, Regln. 23, and Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973.
Facts: The petitioner, a Data Entry Operator, was dismissed for illegally processing CNICs of non-nationals and accepting bribes.
Judgment: The Islamabad High Court dismissed the constitutional petition, noting that NADRA employees are governed by non-statutory regulations under a master-servant relationship. The Court emphasized that legal and codal formalities were completed, and the petitioner’s own confession justified the dismissal.
Postmaster General, Karachi vs. Arshad Ali (2022 SCMR 1796)
Laws Involved: General principles of negligence and inefficiency under service laws.
Facts: The respondent was dismissed for negligence and inefficiency, which caused serious consequences.
Judgment: The Supreme Court stressed that even minor acts of negligence could lead to serious disasters, warranting strict penalties. The Court upheld the dismissal, emphasizing that the Service Tribunal must thoroughly evaluate evidence before modifying penalties imposed by the management.
The Postmaster General Sindh Province, Karachi vs. Syed Farhan (2022 SCMR 1154)
Laws Involved: Post Office Manual, Vol. IV, Appendix No. 27, and service laws on negligence and inefficiency.
Facts: The respondent, a Junior Accountant, was found negligent in supervising a subordinate who committed fraud. The Service Tribunal converted the penalty from removal to withholding promotion.
Judgment: The Supreme Court modified the penalty to withholding promotion for three years. The Court highlighted the need for penalties to be proportionate to the misconduct, even in cases of minor negligence. The responsible persons must be deterred from lax performance, especially when public money is involved.
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Health, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar vs. Dr. Liaqat Ali (2022 SCMR 673)
Laws Involved: Service laws on modifying penalties imposed by the competent authority.
Facts: The Service Tribunal reduced the penalty of removal from service to compulsory retirement, considering the respondent’s long service.
Judgment: The Supreme Court reinstated the original penalty, stating that modifying penalties requires strong justifiable reasons. The Court underscored that the competent authority’s decision should not be arbitrarily altered without substantial grounds.
The Postmaster General Sindh Province, Karachi vs. Syed Farhan (2022 PLC(CS) 961)
Laws Involved: Section 5(1) of service laws on negligence and gross negligence.
Facts: The respondent was found guilty of negligence in supervising a subordinate who committed fraud. The Service Tribunal converted the penalty from removal to withholding promotion.
Judgment: The Supreme Court reinstated a stricter penalty of withholding promotion for three years. The Court distinguished between ordinary negligence and gross negligence, emphasizing that gross negligence warrants severe penalties to ensure accountability and deterrence.
Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs. Noor-ul-Amin (2022 PLC(CS) 132)
Law Involved: Service laws regarding unauthorized absence and penalties.
Facts: The respondent failed to report to duty after his ex-Pakistan leave expired and was removed from service. The Service Tribunal modified this to compulsory retirement, considering no regular inquiry was conducted and the respondent had ten years of service.
Judgment: The Supreme Court reinstated the penalty of removal from service, emphasizing that the absence was undisputed, negating the need for a regular inquiry. The Tribunal’s modification lacked legal basis as long service did not justify unauthorized prolonged absence. The appeal was allowed, restoring the penalty of removal.
Muhammad Shafique vs. The Additional Finance Secretary (Budget) Government of Pakistan, Islamabad (2022 PLC(CS) 47)
Law Involved: Rule 4(1)(b)(i) of the service rules and Article 10A of the Constitution.
Facts: The appellant was involved in unauthorized checking and retention of prize bonds, resulting in a major penalty of reduction to a lower post. He argued no loss occurred as the prize bond was not encashed.
Judgment: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty. The Court noted that misconduct does not require a financial loss for penalties to be imposed. The impartial inquiry and fair hearing provided justified the reduction in post, reinforcing the importance of adhering to procedural fairness.
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs. Nargis Jamal, Ex-DEO (Female) Karak (2022 SCMR 2114)
Law Involved: Service rules on unauthorized absence and penalties.
Facts: The respondent traveled abroad without prior approval and was compulsorily retired. The Tribunal modified this to a reduction in post.
Judgment: The Supreme Court reinstated the compulsory retirement, citing the respondent’s failure to justify her absence or produce necessary documents. The Tribunal’s modification lacked analytical justification, reinforcing the competent authority’s dominion in awarding penalties following due process.
Gohar Manzoor FCA vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan (2022 CLD 302)
Law Involved: Sections 20-A & 20-B of the Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961.
Facts: The appellant was reprimanded for professional misconduct following a suo motu investigation by the Institute’s Council.
Judgment: The Karachi High Court set aside the penalty, noting procedural irregularities in the investigation. Strict adherence to prescribed procedures is mandatory for disciplinary actions, highlighting the necessity of following statutory processes.
Mazhar Ali vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Water and Power Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad (2022 PLC(CS) 150)
Law Involved: Rule 5 of the service rules on misconduct and penalties.
Facts: The petitioner was compulsorily retired for failing to meet performance targets. The Tribunal found the penalty harsh, as no regular inquiry was conducted.
Judgment: The Karachi High Court set aside the penalty, emphasizing the importance of a regular inquiry for major penalties. The decision underscores the principle of natural justice, ensuring fair and transparent disciplinary proceedings.
Zahid Ali vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Pakistani and Human Resource Development (2022 PLC(CS) 32)
Law Involved: Workers’ Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997, Rr. 50, 51, 52 & 57.
Facts: The petitioner was penalized for misconduct without a regular inquiry.
Judgment: The Islamabad High Court highlighted the procedural requirements for disciplinary actions, emphasizing the role of authorized officers and the necessity of a fair inquiry. The Court reinforced that major penalties require adherence to procedural formalities, ensuring due process.
Province of Punjab through Special Secretary, Specialized Healthcare and Medical Education Department, Lahore vs. Khadim Hussain Abbasi (2021 SCMR 1419)
Law Involved: Sections 4(1)(b)(iv) & 4(1)(b)(iii) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), Section 5(1).
Facts: The respondent was compulsorily retired for misconduct, absence without leave, and record tampering. The Tribunal converted this to a minor penalty of forfeiture of past service.
Judgment: The Supreme Court reinstated the compulsory retirement, criticizing the Tribunal for failing to provide substantial reasons for reducing the penalty. The decision highlighted the significance of the competent authority’s findings and the necessity for clear, legally sustainable reasons for altering penalties.
Divisional Superintendent Postal Services Jhang vs. Siddique Ahmed (2021 SCMR 1398)
Law Involved: General principles of misconduct, corruption, and inefficiency.
Facts: The respondent was dismissed for misappropriation of money orders by forging signatures. The Service Tribunal converted the penalty to withholding one increment for two years.
Judgment: The Supreme Court reinstated the dismissal, emphasizing that misappropriation of public funds, regardless of the amount, constitutes a severe breach of trust. The leniency shown by the Tribunal was deemed unwarranted. The appeal was allowed, and the dismissal was restored.
Federation of Pakistan through General Manager/Operations Pakistan Railways, Headquarters Office, Lahore vs. Shah Mohammad (2021 SCMR 1249)
Law Involved: Rule 2307 of General Conditions Governing Pension (C.S.R. 351).
Facts: The respondent, involved in a train accident resulting in multiple fatalities and property damage, was convicted and subsequently had his pension stopped.
Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the stoppage of the pension, stating that pensioners must maintain good conduct throughout their lives. The respondent’s conviction for a serious crime justified the withdrawal of pension under Rule 2307. The appeal was allowed.
Director Postal Life Insurance, Lahore vs. Shakeel Ahmad (2021 SCMR 1162)
Law Involved: Rule 4(1)(a) of the service rules.
Facts: The respondent was penalized for negligence in maintaining official records, initially reduced in pay scale by four steps for five years. The Service Tribunal reduced this to a minor penalty of ‘censure’.
Judgment: The Supreme Court supported the Tribunal’s decision, noting insufficient evidence against the respondent. The major penalty was deemed disproportionately harsh. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services, Gujranwala vs. Muhammad Arif Butt (2021 SCMR 1033)
Law Involved: General principles of misconduct and breach of trust.
Facts: The respondent, a postman, was dismissed for misappropriation of public money. The Service Tribunal converted this to the stoppage of two increments for two years.
Judgment: The Supreme Court reinstated the dismissal, highlighting that misappropriation constitutes dishonesty and misconduct, meriting severe penalties. The leniency of the Tribunal was criticized. The appeal was allowed, and the dismissal was restored.
Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs. Noor-ul-Amin (2021 SCMR 959)
Law Involved: Service laws regarding unauthorized absence and penalties.
Facts: The respondent failed to report to duty after his ex-Pakistan leave expired and was removed from service. The Service Tribunal modified this to compulsory retirement.
Judgment: The Supreme Court reinstated the removal, emphasizing that the absence was undisputed, negating the need for a regular inquiry. The Tribunal’s modification lacked legal basis. The appeal was allowed, restoring the penalty of removal.
Deputy Postmaster General, Central Punjab, Lahore vs. Habib Ahmed (2021 SCMR 584)
Law Involved: Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of service rules and Section 5(1) of the Service Tribunals Act.
Facts: The respondent confessed to misappropriation and misconduct, resulting in dismissal. The Service Tribunal converted this to compulsory retirement.
Judgment: The Supreme Court reinstated the dismissal, stating that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by showing undue leniency. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court were overlooked. The appeal was allowed, and the dismissal was restored.
Director General Federal Directorate vs. Tanveer Muhammad (2021 SCMR 345)
Law Involved: Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of service rules.
Facts: The respondent was dismissed for physically assaulting a colleague. The Service Tribunal converted the dismissal to the withholding of increments.
Judgment: The Supreme Court reinstated the dismissal, citing the severity of the misconduct. The Tribunal’s leniency was unjustified, given the proven charges. The petition for leave to appeal was allowed, and the dismissal was affirmed.
Province of Punjab through Special Secretary, Specialized Healthcare and Medical Education Department, Lahore vs. Khadim Hussain Abbasi (2021 PLC(CS) 1531)
Law Involved: Sections 4(1)(b)(iv) & 4(1)(b)(iii) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, Section 5(1).
Facts: The respondent was compulsorily retired for misconduct, unauthorized absence, and record tampering. The Tribunal reduced this to a minor penalty of forfeiture of past service.
Judgment: The Supreme Court reinstated the compulsory retirement, criticizing the Tribunal for ignoring the severity of the charges. The Tribunal’s decision lacked valid reasons. The appeal was allowed, restoring the penalty of compulsory retirement.
Federation of Pakistan through General Manager/Operations Pakistan Railways, Headquarters Office, Lahore vs. Shah Mohammad (2021 PLC(CS) 1427)
Law Involved: Rule 2307 of General Conditions Governing Pension (C.S.R. 351).
Facts: The respondent, convicted in a criminal case, had his pension stopped.
Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the stoppage, emphasizing that good conduct is a condition for receiving a pension. The respondent’s conviction justified the withdrawal. The appeal was allowed.
Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services, Gujranwala vs. Muhammad Arif Butt (2021 PLC(CS) 955)
Law Involved: General principles of misconduct, corruption, and inefficiency.
Facts: The respondent was dismissed for misappropriation of public money. The Service Tribunal converted this penalty to the stoppage of two increments for two years without future effect, with reinstatement in service.
Judgment: The Supreme Court reinstated the dismissal, emphasizing that misappropriation, regardless of the amount, constitutes a severe breach of trust. The Tribunal’s leniency was deemed unjustified as it undermined the seriousness of the misconduct. The appeal was allowed, and the dismissal was restored.
Director General Federal Directorate vs. Tanveer Muhammad (2021 PLC(CS) 602)
Law Involved: Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of service rules.
Facts: The respondent was dismissed for physically assaulting a female colleague. The Service Tribunal converted this penalty to withholding increments for five years.
Judgment: The Supreme Court reinstated the dismissal, noting that the Tribunal’s leniency was unwarranted given the severity of the misconduct. The assault was substantiated by eyewitness accounts and a medico-legal report. The appeal was allowed, and the dismissal was restored.
Deputy Postmaster General, Central Punjab, Lahore vs. Habib Ahmed (2021 PLC(CS) 531)
Law Involved: Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of service rules, Section 5(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
Facts: The respondent was dismissed for misappropriation and breach of trust. The Service Tribunal converted this penalty to compulsory retirement.
Judgment: The Supreme Court reinstated the dismissal, emphasizing that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by showing undue leniency. The respondent’s misconduct was proven, and the Tribunal’s decision lacked valid reasons. The appeal was allowed, and the dismissal was restored.
Ghous Bukhsh vs. Commander (A&Q) Cholistan Rangers, Rahim Yar Khan (2021 PLC(CS) 107)
Law Involved: Section 15(1) of service rules.
Facts: The petitioner was dismissed for unauthorized absence from duty. The Service Tribunal converted the dismissal to removal from service.
Judgment: The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, converting the dismissal to removal from service. The Court noted the petitioner’s repeated unauthorized absences and the lack of valid reasons for his absence. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the penalty to removal from service.
Muhammad Shafique vs. The Additional Finance Secretary (Budget) Government of Pakistan, Islamabad (2021 SCMR 1834)
Law Involved: Rule 4(1)(b)(i) of service rules, Article 10A of the Constitution.
Facts: The appellant was penalized for unauthorized checking and retention of prize bonds. The penalty was reduced to a lower post.
Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the penalty, emphasizing that misconduct does not require financial loss for penalties to be imposed. The appellant was given ample opportunity to defend himself, and the inquiry was conducted fairly. The appeal was dismissed.
Dr. Karim Shah vs. Chairman, Search and Nomination Council/Health Minister, Government Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar (2021 PLC(CS) 235)
Law Involved: Sections 10, 23 & 24 of service rules.
Facts: The petitioner was removed from service without a regular inquiry.
Judgment: The Peshawar High Court declared the removal illegal, emphasizing that serious allegations of misconduct require a regular inquiry. The authorities violated principles of transparency and fair play. The impugned order was set aside, allowing fresh disciplinary proceedings if advised. The petition was allowed.
Haider Ali vs. The Managing Director, Bank of Khyber (2021 PLC(CS)N 4)
Law Involved: Rules 14.3, 14.6 & 14.7 of Bank of Khyber Employees Service Rules, 2012.
Facts: The petitioners were dismissed for misconduct without a regular inquiry.
Judgment: The Peshawar High Court set aside the dismissal, noting the lack of show cause notice and personal hearing. The competent authority failed to comply with mandatory provisions. The employees were reinstated without back benefits, and fresh proceedings were allowed as per the rules. The petition was allowed.
Zulfiqar Ali vs. Factory Manager/Industrial Relations Manager, Packages Ltd. (2021 PLC 224)
Law Involved: Section 15 of service rules.
Facts: The petitioner was dismissed for misconduct, and the order was maintained by the Labour Court.
Judgment: The Lahore High Court upheld the dismissal, noting that a proper inquiry was conducted, and the petitioner was found guilty. The employer’s prerogative to determine punishment was upheld, and no illegality was found in the proceedings. The petition was dismissed.
Shakir Ali vs. National Accountability Bureau (2021 PLC(CS) 683)
Law Involved: Rule 11.03(1)(b) of service rules.
Facts: The petitioners were dismissed for misconduct without a regular inquiry.
Judgment: The Karachi High Court set aside the dismissal, emphasizing the necessity of a fair inquiry. The absence of a regular inquiry suggested bias and unfair treatment. The matter was remanded for a fresh inquiry with an opportunity for the petitioners to defend themselves. The petition was allowed.
Muhammad Ismail vs. The Chairman Pakistan Steel (2021 PLC(CS) 109)
Law Involved: Service rules pertaining to negligence and misconduct.
Facts: The petitioner was demoted due to negligence in duty, which was found to constitute misconduct.
Judgment: The Karachi High Court upheld the penalty of demotion, noting that the inquiry was conducted properly, and no malice was shown by the competent authority. The petitioner violated service discipline, and the penalty was imposed according to the rules. The constitutional petition was dismissed.
Faisal Haider Memon vs. Registrar of High Court of Sindh (2021 PLC(CS)N 14)
Law Involved: Rule 4(1)(b)(iii)(a)(i) concerning misconduct and the imposition of penalties.
Facts: The civil servant was removed from service for filling a bail bond in the absence of the accused.
Judgment: The High Court converted the major penalty of removal from service to censure, reinstating the employee. It held that the punishment must be proportionate to the offense, and no corruption charge was proven. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited vs. Full Bench National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad (2021 PLC 209)
Law Involved: Regulation 2(4) of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan Officer Service (Efficiency and Discipline) Regulations, 1975, and Section 27(B) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962.
Facts: Employees were terminated for participating in trade union activities during office hours, which was treated as absence from duty.
Judgment: The NIRC set aside the termination orders, and the High Court upheld this decision. The termination was not aligned with the defined misconduct under the regulations, and the dispute was industrial rather than individual. The constitutional petition was dismissed.
Syed Asghar Shah vs. Peshawar High Court, Peshawar (2020 PLC(CS) 1254)
Law Involved: Section 5 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973.
Facts: The petitioner, a Judicial Officer, was compulsorily retired based on adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) indicating ill-reputation.
Judgment: The Service Tribunal converted the compulsory retirement to a reduction in rank for three years. It was noted that the adverse remarks were communicated post-retirement and could not solely justify compulsory retirement. The appeal was allowed accordingly.
Abdul Hakeem Hashmi vs. Peshawar High Court, Peshawar (2020 PLC(CS) 1100)
Law Involved: Rules 4(1)(b)(iii), 5(1)(a), 7, and 2(f)(g)(l) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Judicial Service Rules, 2001.
Facts: Judicial Officers were removed from service based on adverse ACR entries indicating persistent corruption.
Judgment: The Service Tribunal modified the penalty from removal to compulsory retirement. It held that repeated adverse entries could justify an opinion about a judicial officer’s reputation, but regular inquiry was not mandatory when adverse material existed. The appeals were dismissed.
Ghous Bukhsh vs. Commander (A&Q) Cholistan Rangers, Rahim Yar Khan (2020 SCMR 1853)
Law Involved: Section 15(1) of the service rules for Pakistan Rangers.
Facts: The petitioner was dismissed for unauthorized absence from duty. The Service Tribunal converted this to removal from service.
Judgment: The Supreme Court converted the dismissal to removal from service, noting the petitioner’s repeated unauthorized absences. The appeal was partly allowed.
District Police Officer, Mianwali vs. Muhammad Hanif (2020 SCMR 1610)
Law Involved: Rules 3(b) and 4(1)(b)(iv) concerning misconduct and receiving bribes.
Facts: The police official was dismissed for accepting illegal gratification.
Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, emphasizing that accepting bribes constituted serious misconduct requiring major penalties. The appeal was dismissed.
Commissioner Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad vs. Allah Bakhsh (2020 SCMR 1418)
Law Involved: Section 5 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
Facts: The respondent-Patwari transferred government land to private parties, resulting in a significant loss to the government.
Judgment: The Supreme Court restored the dismissal from service, noting the fraudulent conduct and the inappropriateness of leniency. The appeal was allowed.
Chief Postmaster Faisalabad, GPO vs. Muhammad Afzal (2020 SCMR 1029)
Law Involved: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973.
Facts: The respondent was dismissed for misappropriation, embezzlement, and dishonesty.
Judgment: The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal’s decision to convert the dismissal to compulsory retirement. It emphasized that the Tribunal’s modification lacked valid reasoning. The appeal was allowed, restoring the dismissal.
Hassan Raza vs. Federal Board of Revenue (2020 SCMR 994)
Law Involved: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, Rr. 3(b), 3(c) & 4(1)(b)(iv).
Facts: The petitioner, posted at an airport, was caught on CCTV demanding a bribe from a passenger. The video footage was authentic, and the petitioner admitted his presence in the footage but disputed the voice.
Judgment: The Supreme Court found that the video and audio were synchronized, and the petitioner’s defense was invalid. The Service Tribunal’s decision to convert the dismissal from service to compulsory retirement was upheld, considering the gravity of the misconduct. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Government of Pakistan, Revenue Division, Federal Board of Revenue vs. Nawaz Ali Sheikh (2020 SCMR 656)
Law Involved: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, Rr. 3(a), 3(b) & 3(c).
Facts: The respondent, a superintendent at the Regional Tax Office, processed bogus refund claims despite red alerts. The Service Tribunal modified the dismissal to a reduction in pay scale for five years.
Judgment: The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal’s modification, upholding the dismissal. It emphasized that the respondent’s actions constituted inefficiency, misconduct, and corruption, justifying the major penalty of dismissal.
National Accountability Bureau vs. Muhammad Shafique (2020 SCMR 425)
Law Involved: Revised Leave Rules, 1980, R. 9(3).
Facts: The petitioner was unauthorizedly absent and sought his absence to be treated as extraordinary leave without pay.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the power to treat unauthorized absence as leave without pay must be exercised in genuine cases. The Tribunal’s decision to impose a major penalty without due consideration of the absence circumstances was upheld.
District Police Officer, Mianwali vs. Muhammad Hanif (2020 PLC(CS) 1391)
Law Involved: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, Rr. 3(b) & 4(1)(b)(iv).
Facts: The police official accepted a bribe, which is a serious misconduct.
Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal from service, stressing that accepting bribes warranted major penalties due to the seriousness of the misconduct.
Commissioner Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad vs. Allah Bakhsh (2020 PLC(CS) 1276)
Law Involved: Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, S. 5.
Facts: The respondent-Patwari transferred government land to private parties, causing significant losses.
Judgment: The Supreme Court restored the dismissal from service, noting that the respondent’s actions constituted fraud and embezzlement, meriting the maximum penalty. The Service Tribunal’s reduction of the penalty was set aside.
Chief Postmaster Faisalabad, GPO vs. Muhammad Afzal (2020 PLC(CS) 979)
Law Involved: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, Rr. 3(b), 3(c) & 4(1)(b)(iv).
Facts: The respondent was dismissed for misappropriation and embezzlement.
Judgment: The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal’s modification to compulsory retirement, reaffirming the dismissal. It highlighted that the Tribunal’s powers under S. 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, must be exercised judiciously and with valid reasons.
Government of Pakistan, Revenue Division, Federal Board of Revenue vs. Nawaz Ali Sheikh (2020 PLC(CS) 585)
Law Involved: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, Rr. 3(a), 3(b) & 3(c).
Facts: The respondent processed bogus refund claims and was dismissed. The Tribunal modified the dismissal to a reduction in pay scale.
Judgment: The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal’s modification, reinstating the dismissal. The respondent’s inefficiency, misconduct, and corruption justified the major penalty.
National Accountability Bureau vs. Muhammad Shafique (2020 PLC(CS) 448)
Law Involved: Revised Leave Rules, 1980, R. 9(3).
Facts: The petitioner sought unauthorized absence to be treated as extraordinary leave without pay.
Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the imposition of a major penalty, noting that the power to treat absence as leave without pay should be exercised only in genuine cases.
Munawar Ali Jalbani vs. Chairman, Higher Education Commission, Islamabad (2020 PLC(CS) 1281)
Law Involved: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, Rr. 4(1)(b)(iii), 5(1)(ii) & 6.
Facts: The employee was removed from service following an inquiry. He contended that the inquiry report was not provided along with the show cause notice.
Judgment: The court found that procedural lapses occurred, such as the failure to provide the inquiry report with the show cause notice and the absence of a charge sheet issued by the authorized officer. The major penalty of removal from service was set aside, with the liberty to reinitiate proceedings in accordance with the rules.
Zahid Hussain Makhdoom vs. Secretary/Chairman, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Islamabad (2019 PLC(CS) 263)
Law Involved: Not explicitly mentioned, but general principles of proportionality in disciplinary actions were applied.
Facts: The employee was absent for 16 months due to a tribal dispute. Despite an unblemished 35-year service record, he was dismissed from service.
Judgment: The Supreme Court converted the dismissal into compulsory retirement, considering the unsubstantiated yet undisputed reasons for the absence and the employee’s long service record.
Saleem Wazir Professor Community Medicine vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2019 PLC(CS) 224)
Law Involved: Not explicitly mentioned, but principles of natural justice and regular inquiry were highlighted.
Facts: The petitioner was dismissed without a detailed reply to the show cause notice containing serious allegations.
Judgment: The High Court found the hasty decision lacking reasons and contrary to natural justice. The dismissal was declared illegal, allowing the authorities to reinitiate action in accordance with the law.
Shaikh Muhammad Suleman vs. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (2019 PLC(CS) 1381)
Law Involved: Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964, R. 24, and Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, S.36(1)(e).
Facts: The employee contested local bodies’ elections without prior approval and was removed from service.
Judgment: The court upheld the removal, noting that the employee had committed misconduct by violating service rules.
Naved Alam Zubairi vs. Federation of Pakistan (2019 PLC(CS)N 34)
Law Involved: General principles of procedural fairness in disciplinary actions.
Facts: The inquiry was reopened against the employee after it was initially closed due to lack of evidence.
Judgment: The court upheld the reopening of the inquiry, finding it legal and within the authority’s discretion to investigate new incriminating material.
