Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Liaqat Ali vs Force Commander, Airport Security HQ., Karachi And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 12 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-06-13Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 510 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-05Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali and 2 others vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 193 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali And 2 Other vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 193 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
• Lever Brother Pakistan Limited, Karachi vs Mrs. Kishwar Sultana Khan1994 PLC 610 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-03-09
  workmantermination of serviceback benefitsconfidential secretaryIndustrial Relations OrdinanceStanding Orders Ordinancereinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order of the Labour Court reinstating the respondent into service with full back benefits. The core legal questions involved whether the respondent, employed as a confidential secretary, qualified as a 'workman' under labour laws despite her managerial designation and salary, and whether the termination of her services complied with statutory requirements. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that an employee's status is determined by the actual nature of duties performed rather than their designation, salary, or perks. Since the respondent's daily tasks primarily consisted of clerical and routine office duties, she was a workman. Furthermore, the termination order was illegal for failing to explicitly state reasons as mandated by law. The Tribunal affirmed the reinstatement order and the award of full back benefits, as the employer failed to disprove the employee's assertion that she remained jobless after termination. The key principle laid down is that employment status is ascertained by core duties rather than contractual nomenclature, and any termination of a workman without explicit written reasons violates labour legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a designation as a confidential secretary or junior manager exclude an employee from the definition of a workman under labour laws?
  • Is the status of an employee determined by their salary and designation or by the actual nature of the duties performed?
  • Does a termination order that fails to state explicit reasons comply with Standing Order 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Are full back benefits rightly awarded to a terminated employee who successfully proves she remained jobless after dismissal?
  Read full judgment →
• Latif Asghar And 11 Other vs The Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore And 3 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 156 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
• Lassa Sheikh and anothers vs Mateen Hameed1994 SCMR 369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-19
  property disputeallotment of landtransfer of propertycivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment concerning a property dispute over a plot of land. The core legal question involved the validity of the transfer of a plot originally allotted to a third party, Shaukat Hussain, in 1962, and subsequently purchased by the respondent. The petitioner, claiming entitlement as a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir in possession of the plot, sought a declaration that the initial transfer to Shaukat Hussain was void and illegal. The trial court dismissed the petitioner's suit and decreed the respondent's suit for possession, which was upheld on appeal and in civil revision. The Supreme Court held that the respondent possessed a valid title to the property. The Court observed that the petitioner's application for transfer had been rejected, and the petitioner failed to challenge that rejection at the appropriate time. Consequently, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned orders and determined that no point of law of public importance existed to warrant interference. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a petitioner have standing to challenge a property transfer if their own application for the same property was previously rejected and not appealed?
  • Is a purchaser of a plot from a valid transferee entitled to possession against a claimant whose application for transfer was rejected?
  • Does a civil revision require a point of law of public importance for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Lars Costa Adhom vs The C.I.T., Rawalpindi1994 PTD 590 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-17
  double taxation avoidancetax exemptionnon-resident technicianSwedish nationalincome tax referencemisreading of agreementemployment status
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a batch of civil references concerning the taxability of incidental charges received by non-resident Swedish nationals who were employed by a Swedish company and deputed to supervise the erection of a plant in Pakistan under an agreement with a Pakistani company. The core legal question was whether the assessee technicians were entitled to tax exemption under the double taxation avoidance agreement between Pakistan and Sweden on the ground that they were acting on behalf of the Swedish company. The Lahore High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal misread and misinterpreted the agreements by failing to consider crucial clauses establishing that the personnel remained employees of the contractor Swedish company during their stay. Consequently, the Court ruled that the technicians qualified for tax exemption under Article 13 of the agreement as their stay did not exceed 183 days and they performed services for and on behalf of a resident of Sweden. Both reference questions were answered in the negative and against the department.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an assessee technician acting on behalf of a foreign company is entitled to tax exemption under the Agreement between Pakistan and Sweden for avoidance of double taxation of income?
  • Whether the Income Tax Officer's action in imposing tax on incidental charges of non-resident technicians was right at law?
  • Whether personnel deputed by a foreign contractor to supervise installation work in Pakistan remain employees of the contractor or the local customer for tax purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Larkana Sugar Mills Ltd. and anothers vs United Bank Limited, Karachi1994 PLD Karachi 296 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
• Larkana Sugar Mills Ltd. And Another vs United Bank Limited, Karachi1994 PLD Karachi 296 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
• Larkana Sugar Mills Ltd, And Other vs United Bank Limited, I.I.K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 142 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
• Lango vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 52) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-02Read full judgment →
• Langar and others vs Ch. Muhammad Shafi and others1994 MLD 2169 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-26
  limitation periodsuit for possessiondeclaratory suitmutationhandwriting expertevidentiary valuerevenue recordfraud and forgery
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal arises from a suit for possession of agricultural land, wherein the plaintiff challenged sale mutations sanctioned in 1967 and 1969 as fraudulent. The core legal questions were whether the suit was time-barred and if the plaintiff had successfully established the alleged fraud. The Lahore High Court held that the suit was clearly time-barred. Since the defendants were recorded as owners in possession in revenue records, the plaintiff was legally obligated to seek a declaration of title within the six-year limitation period prescribed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court further held that the plaintiff failed to prove the mutation was fraudulent. It emphasized that a photocopy of a handwriting expert's report, sourced from a police file without summoning the expert or obtaining a certified copy from judicial records, possesses no evidentiary value in civil litigation. Consequently, the Court reversed the trial court's findings, ruling that the plaintiff had failed to discharge the burden of proof, and dismissed the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for possession is maintainable when the defendant is recorded as owner in possession in revenue records?
  • Is a photocopy of a handwriting expert's report from a police file admissible as evidence in a civil suit without summoning the expert?
  • What is the limitation period for challenging a sale mutation in a suit for declaration of title?
  • Does the failure to challenge revenue record entries within the statutory period bar a subsequent suit for possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Land Acquisition Officer and Collector and others vs Qalandar Khan1994 SCMR 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-20
  land acquisitionlimitation periodconsent ordercompensation assessmentstatutory compensationcomplete justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeal against a District Judge's decree in a land acquisition matter. The core legal question was whether the limitation period for filing an appeal against a judgment and decree awarding compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, should be computed from the date of the original decree or from a subsequent date when a consent order awarded additional statutory compensation. The Supreme Court held that the limitation period for the appeal against the original judgment and decree commenced from the date of that decree, not the subsequent consent order. The Court reasoned that the consent order did not merge with the original decree in a manner that would extend the limitation period, particularly as no appeal could be filed against a consent order. Furthermore, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary power to issue directions for 'complete justice' under the Constitution, finding the lower court's assessment of compensation based on documentary evidence to be fair and just. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a subsequent consent order modifying a decree extend the limitation period for filing an appeal against the original judgment and decree?
  • Can an appeal be filed against a consent order passed by a court?
  • Does the Supreme Court's power to do complete justice under Article 187 of the Constitution allow it to override statutory limitation periods for appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• Lala And Others vs Ditta And Other1994 CLC 54 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-09Read full judgment →
• Lal Khan And Another vs Rehmat1994 CLC 1419 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-23Read full judgment →
• Lal Din vs Vice-Chancellor And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 880 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-15
  constitutional petitionmaster and servantdate of birth disputesuperannuationservice recordwrongful retirementstatutory rules and regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the legality of an order retiring the petitioner from service, effective retrospectively, based on a disputed date of birth. The core legal question was whether the respondent university could unilaterally alter the petitioner's date of birth recorded in his service book to force early retirement, and whether the relationship between the parties was strictly governed by the 'Master and Servant' doctrine, thereby barring constitutional relief. The Court held that the respondents failed to substantiate the alleged date of birth with credible evidence, noting that the service book consistently recorded the petitioner's date of birth as 1933, a fact corroborated by official correspondence with an insurance company. The Court rejected the 'Master and Servant' argument, establishing that because the petitioner's employment was regulated by statutory rules and regulations, the employer lacked absolute, uncontrolled power to terminate service at whim. Consequently, the retirement order was declared without lawful authority, and the petitioner was reinstated with full benefits, as the Court affirmed that an employee cannot be prejudiced by the failure of authorities to properly authenticate service records.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer unilaterally alter an employee's date of birth in the service record without credible evidence?
  • Does the 'Master and Servant' doctrine apply when an employee's service is governed by statutory rules and regulations?
  • Can an employee be prejudiced by the failure of the employer's authorities to properly sign or authenticate entries in a service book?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against a university when the employment terms are regulated by statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Din vs Bashir Ahmad and 5 others1994 SCMR 454 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-23
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryconflicting FIRsgrave and sudden provocationmurderleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a High Court order granting bail to respondents Nos. 1 to 5, who were accused of the murder of Muhammad Aslam. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in granting bail given the conflicting versions of the incident presented in two separate First Information Reports (F.I.R.). The petitioner's F.I.R. alleged a premeditated assault, while the respondents' version, supported by an earlier F.I.R. lodged by the prosecutrix, alleged that the deceased was killed following a provocation arising from an attempted rape. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the existence of two competing F.I.R.s, the earlier timing of the prosecutrix's report, and the corroborating medical evidence collectively established a case for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case is countered by a plausible, earlier-in-time version of events supported by medical evidence, the matter warrants further inquiry, thereby justifying the grant of bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of two conflicting First Information Reports regarding the same incident constitute grounds for further inquiry in bail proceedings?
  • Is the timing of a First Information Report a relevant factor in determining the entitlement to bail?
  • Can medical evidence corroborating an earlier-in-time First Information Report justify the grant of bail to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Din alias Lalu and anothers vs The State1994 MLD 1414 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-16
  murderspeedy trialspot arrestmedical evidenceocular accountballistic matchcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Special Court for Speedy Trials, Multan, convicting the appellants under section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Saleh Muhammad in the premises of the District Courts. The core legal question involved the sufficiency of ocular and circumstantial evidence, the legality of proving medical evidence through a dispenser when the medical officer had gone abroad, and the credibility of immediate spot-arrests with crime weapons. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the presence of natural eye-witnesses, prompt FIR, corroborative ballistic reports, and the immediate apprehension of the appellants at the scene with their respective weapons conclusively established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the Court held that the post-mortem report was legally proven through a dispenser who was personally acquainted with the handwriting and absence of the medical officer. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a dispenser can be relied upon to prove a post-mortem report when the examining medical officer has left the country?
  • Does the immediate apprehension of an accused at the scene of crime along with the crime weapon furnish sufficient corroboration to an ocular account?
  • Whether the presence of close relatives and friends as eye-witnesses at court premises during criminal litigation is considered natural and reliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Bakhsh alias Labu vs The State1994 MLD 1860 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-25Read full judgment →
• Lal alias Laloo vs The State1994 MLD 360 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
• Lakhey Khan And Others vs A.C./D.C./Additional Settlement1994 CLC 1830 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
• Lahore Development Authority, Lahore And Another vs Muhammad1994 CLC 2313 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-12Read full judgment →
• Kukreja Agencies vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1994 PTD 383 · Bombay High Court · 1992-10-09Read full judgment →
• Kraft General Foods Inc. vs Abid Anjum, Manager_Partner_Proprietor, Tango Enterprises and 3 others1994 MLD 607 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-04Read full judgment →
• Kohinoor Textile Mills Ltd. vs Mazhar Hussain1994 PLC 364 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
• Kohinoor Industries Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan And Other1994 CLC 994 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-14
  central excise dutyrefund of excess dutymistake of lawproduction capacity ruleslimitation periodwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a textile mills company, manufactured cotton yarn and fabrics alongside manmade synthetic yarn using the same plant machinery, paying excise duty under the Production Capacity Rules as well as under section 3(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Seeking a declaration that double duty on manmade yarn was recovered without lawful authority, the petitioner demanded a refund of excess duty paid from May 1968 to June 1978. The respondents conceded that excise duty on manmade fabrics was not legally chargeable but argued that the refund claim for the period beyond one year was time-barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Lahore High Court held that Rule 11 applies only to clerical errors, arithmetical calculations, or inadvertence, and does not govern taxes paid under a mistake of law or compulsion, which are instead recoverable under section 72 of the Contract Act subject to the three-year limitation period under Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1908, running from the date of the discovery of the mistake. The writ petition was allowed, directing the refund of excess duty for the period of three years prior to the date of demand.

  Questions settled

  • Does Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules 1944 apply to claims for refund of excise duty paid under a mistake of law or compulsion?
  • What limitation period governs a claim for the refund of taxes paid under a mistake of law?
  • Can double excise duty be charged on manmade synthetic yarn produced on the same spindles and machinery already assessed to duty under production capacity rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Kohinoor Industries Ltd. Faisalabad. vs Govt, Of Pakistan Through Secretaiy, Ministry Of Finance, Islamabad And OtherPTCL 1994 CL. 280 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khyber Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pakistan National Shipping1994 PLD Supreme Court 725 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-31
  fixation of fair rentterminus a quoappellate powersSindh Rented Premises OrdinanceCode of Civil Procedurepowers of appellate courtrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh regarding the fixation of fair rent under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether an appellate authority/judge in chambers could modify the operative date (terminus a quo) for the payment of fair rent from December, 1990 (as ordered by the Rent Controller) to the date of the rent application, in favor of a respondent who had not filed any appeal against the Rent Controller's order. The Supreme Court held that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as a whole is not applicable to proceedings under the Ordinance, and the powers under Order XLI, Rule 33 C.P.C. cannot be invoked to alter the date to the detriment of the appellant when no cross-appeal or objection was filed by the respondent. Furthermore, section 21 of the Ordinance does not empower the appellate authority to grant unappealed relief involving substantial monetary liability. The appeal was allowed and the Rent Controller's original date of December, 1990 was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate authority under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, can substitute the operative date for the payment of fair rent in favor of a respondent who did not file an appeal or objection against the Rent Controller's order?
  • Does the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 apply as a whole to proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 33, C.P.C. be invoked in rent proceedings to grant relief on an unappealed issue involving substantial monetary liability?
  • Whether the Rent Controller is competent to order the payment of fair rent from the date of the order when the governing statute does not specify the date from which fair rent is payable?
  Read full judgment →
• Khushrang and another vs The State1994 MLD 962 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-25Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad And Other vs Bashir Ahmad And OtherK.L.R 1994 Revenue Cases 112 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad and 4 others vs Bashir Ahmad and 8 others1994 MLD 791 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad And 2 Others vs Allah Bakhsh And 2 Other1994 CLC 1180 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-22Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad and 14 others vs A.C./D.S.C./Additional Settlement1994 MLD 2150 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
• Khushal Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 128 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-24Read full judgment →
• Khushal Khan vs Rao Nawaz and 4 others1994 SCMR 814 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-22
  pre-emptionfinal judgment and decreeabatement of pre-emption suitsIslamic law of pre-emptionrevisionwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition against orders in a pre-emption matter. The petitioner had instituted a pre-emption suit in 1973 regarding agricultural land. After several rounds of litigation through revenue authorities, the Board of Revenue ultimately remanded and decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner in 1992, which was subsequently set aside by the High Court. The core legal question was whether a pending pre-emption suit where the plaintiff's suit had originally been dismissed could be decreed by relying on Section 34 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, following the lapse of the old pre-emption laws pursuant to the Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction's ruling in Said Kamal Shah's case. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that under the authoritative interpretation established in Rozi Khan v. Syed Karim Shah, the phrase 'judgments and decrees passed by the Courts have become final' in pre-emption saving provisions refers strictly to judgments and decrees wherein the pre-emptor's suit was decreed. The Court affirmed that pending proceedings where the suit stood dismissed are not saved in favor of the pre-emptor, thereby distinguishing Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Sharif.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal meaning of the words 'judgments and decrees passed by the Courts have become final' under pre-emption saving provisions?
  • Does Section 34 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 protect a pre-emption suit where the plaintiff's suit was originally dismissed by the trial court?
  • How does the cessation of old pre-emption laws pursuant to Said Kamal Shah's case affect pending pre-emption litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Alam Alias Bau vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 499 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-29Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ahmed Goreja vs The Appellate Authority through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others1994 SCMR 1654 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-20
  civil servantService Tribunal jurisdictionpermanent absorptionretirement benefitsstatutory bodylien termination
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former employee of the Pakistan Council of Appropriate Technology (PCAT), challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed his appeal against a demotion order for lack of jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner retained the status of a 'civil servant' under the relevant service laws, thereby invoking the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, despite having previously retired from his original position in the Telephone and Telegraph Department. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had severed his ties with the civil service upon his retirement in 1982, after which he was permanently absorbed into the ATDO (later PCAT). Consequently, he did not hold the status of a civil servant at the time of the impugned disciplinary order. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The key principle laid down is that an individual who has retired from the civil service and accepted pensionary benefits, subsequently serving in a statutory body, does not retain the status of a civil servant for the purposes of Service Tribunal jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee who retires from the civil service and accepts pensionary benefits retain the status of a civil servant while employed by a statutory body?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed by an employee who is not a civil servant?
  • Does permanent absorption into a statutory body after retirement from the civil service constitute a continuation of civil service status?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ahmad vs Masooda Begum And Other1994 CLC 495 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-04Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ahmad and anothers vs The State and 3 others1994 PLD Karachi 363 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-03Read full judgment →
• Khursheed Ahmed vs Chairman, Pakistan Telecommunication1994 PLC (C.S.) 293 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-08-03
  service tribunalmove-overcompulsory retirementextraordinary leaveback benefitsannual confidential reportssupreme court of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal concerning the effective date of his move-over following reinstatement into service. The petitioner, formerly an Assistant Engineer in the T&T Department, was compulsorily retired, but the Tribunal earlier converted the penalty into the stoppage of three increments. Upon reinstatement without back benefits and treating the intervening period as extraordinary leave without pay, the petitioner claimed entitlement to a move-over from an earlier date. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to claim a move-over and intervening increments during the period of retirement and subsequent extraordinary leave without pay. The Supreme Court held that the petition was devoid of merit, affirming that a break in service and extraordinary leave disentitle an employee from earning increments during that period, and that the requisite formula for move-over, including consecutive favourable annual confidential reports, could not be satisfied during such leave. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee is entitled to earn increments during a period of break in service treated as extraordinary leave without pay?
  • Can an employee claim a move-over to a higher grade without fulfilling the required formula including consecutive favourable annual confidential reports?
  • Whether a previous unchallenged judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal acts as a closed transaction regarding the terms of reinstatement?
  Read full judgment →
• Khuda-E-Dad vs Bibi Naziran And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 515 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-11-18Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bukhsh And Another vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 442 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-28Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh through Legal Heirs and 8 others vs Muhammad Din1994 SCMR 402 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-09
  limited estatecustomary successionoccupancy tenancyappraisement of evidenceverified claimallotment of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal concerns the nature of land allotment made to a widow, Mst. Faji, against a verified claim received from India following the partition of the country. The core legal question was whether the property held by the widow constituted a 'limited estate' of her deceased husband or if she was the full owner. The trial and appellate courts had concurrently held that she was a full owner, primarily relying on her acts of mortgaging and redeeming the land. The Supreme Court set aside these findings, identifying three legal errors in the lower courts' appraisement of evidence: improperly shifting the burden to the appellants to produce pre-partition records from India, over-emphasizing post-partition documents, and failing to properly weigh creditworthy oral evidence. The Court held that the land tenure, being hereditary occupancy tenancy held by an agriculturist tribe, was governed by custom, under which the widow inherited only a limited estate. Consequently, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, affirming the property was held as a limited estate.

  Questions settled

  • Does the act of a widow mortgaging and redeeming inherited land prove she is a full owner rather than a limited estate holder?
  • Is it legally permissible for courts to penalize parties for failing to produce pre-partition documentary evidence from India?
  • Does the hereditary occupancy tenancy of an agriculturist tribe indicate the applicability of custom to succession?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 228 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-30Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh through his Legal Heirs vs Mst. Niaz Bibi and anothers1994 PLD Supreme Court 298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-11
  past and closed transactionabatement of proceedingsMuslim Personal Lawcustomary lawexecution of decreedelivery of possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court, which held that the suit filed by the appellants based on custom stood abated by virtue of section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983. The core legal question was whether the delivery of possession of the suit land pursuant to a decree during the pendency of a second appeal, and in the absence of a stay order, constitutes a 'past and closed transaction' exempt from abatement under the proviso to section 2-A(c) of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the pendency of the appeal keeps the dispute alive, and the execution and delivery of possession remain subject to the ultimate result of the appellate proceedings and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to restitution. The key principle laid down is that the execution of a decree and delivery of possession during a pending appeal do not render the matter a past and closed transaction so as to bar the abatement provisions of section 2-A(c) of the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the execution of a decree and delivery of possession during the pendency of an appeal constitute a past and closed transaction under section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983?
  • Whether the absence of a stay order from an appellate court affects the abatement of pending proceedings under section 2-A(c) of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983?
  • Does the pendency of an appeal keep the dispute alive despite the execution of the underlying decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh And Others vs Muhammad Ghani And Other1994 C L. C 1653 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-17Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 193 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Muhammad Farooq vs United Bank Limited, Mul Tan1994 CLC 276 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-20Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Ghulam Muhammad vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1742 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1994-06-01Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Bashir Ahmad vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government1994 PLC (C.S.) 56 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1993-04-04
  service tribunalmajor penaltydepartmental inquirysecond inquiryefficiency and discipline rulescivil servantlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal filed by a civil servant against the orders of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government imposing a major penalty involving the recovery of a financial loss from his salary and rejecting his review petition. The appellant challenged the departmental proceedings on multiple grounds, primarily arguing that a second inquiry was illegally initiated after he was partially exonerated in the first inquiry, that mandatory procedural rules were violated, including the failure of the inquiry officer to complete the report within the stipulated time, and that he was denied adequate opportunities of defense. The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal held that the competent authority is fully empowered to order a second inquiry if the initial inquiry is found defective or not conducted in accordance with the rules. The Tribunal further held that a mere delay in submitting the inquiry report by the inquiry officer, without causing prejudice to the accused, does not vitiate the proceedings, and implied extension of time can be presumed. Additionally, the appeal was found to be barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the competent authority is competent to order a second departmental inquiry against a civil servant if the first inquiry is found not to be in accordance with the relevant rules?
  • Does a delay by an inquiry officer in submitting the inquiry report beyond the prescribed period render the inquiry proceedings illegal and ineffective?
  • Whether the failure to supply a copy of the inquiry report to an accused civil servant violates the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1977?
  • Whether an appeal filed before the Service Tribunal beyond the period of limitation without sufficient cause is maintainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Abdul Khaliq vs Water and Power Development Authority1994 PLC (C.S.) 776 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-17
  disciplinary actionservice tribunalunauthorized electricity connectionquestion of factleave to appealreversion in rank
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Line-Superintendent employed by the Water and Power Development Authority, was subjected to disciplinary action and reverted to a lower post for three years after being found guilty of unauthorizedly granting an electricity connection to a village. His departmental representation and subsequent appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal were both dismissed. In his petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioner did not dispute granting the connection without formal permission, but contended he acted under the verbal orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, who was exonerated in separate departmental proceedings. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner acted under the valid orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was determined to be a pure question of fact. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's contention did not raise any substantial question of law of public importance. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, finalizing the penalty imposed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a claim of acting under verbal orders of a superior officer raise a substantial question of law of public importance in service matters?
  • Whether a factual determination by service tribunals regarding departmental misconduct warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Can an employee escape disciplinary liability for an unauthorized act by asserting verbal instructions that are denied by the superior officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Abdul Khaliq vs Water and Power Development Authority1994 SCMR 965 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-17
  service matterdepartmental inquiryreversion in rankunauthorized electricity connectionleave to appealquestion of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a Line-Superintendent against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld his departmental reversion for unauthorizedly granting an electricity connection. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner acted under the verbal orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, presenting a pure question of fact. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner admitted to giving the connection without permission from the competent authority, and the Sub-Divisional Officer did not support the petitioner's assertion of having received verbal orders. Furthermore, the contention raised no substantial question of law of public importance. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the disciplinary action and the Tribunal's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does a defense of acting under verbal orders of a superior officer raise a substantial question of law of public importance?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent factual findings of departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal regarding unauthorized acts?
  Read full judgment →
• Khanun And Others vs Ghulam Muhammad1994 CLC 987 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Khani Zaman vs Azad Government Through Chief Secretary, Azad Jammu1994 PLC (C.S.) 1256 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
• Khandelwal Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1994 PTD 1101 · Bombay High Court · 1993-02-04Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 123) · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-18Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs The State and another1994 MLD 1431 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-04-05Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs Sh. Muhammad Akram1994 SCMR 1711 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-31
  review petitionlimitationSupreme Court Rulescounsel representationcondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for review of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No. 1051 of 1990, which was barred by 29 days and filed by a new advocate who did not represent the petitioner during the hearing of the appeal. The core legal question is whether a review petition can be entertained when filed by a counsel who did not appear at the hearing of the original appeal, in violation of the applicable rules, and accompanied by a time-barred application without satisfactory justification for waiving procedural requirements. The court held that the petition violates Rule 6 of Order XXVI of the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules, and since no satisfactory justification was made out to waive the requirement, the petition stands dismissed. The key principle laid down is that review petitions must strictly comply with procedural rules regarding representation, and failure to provide sufficient justification for non-compliance or delay warrants dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a review petition can be filed by an advocate who did not appear at the hearing of the original appeal under the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules?
  • Is a review petition barred by time and violating procedural rules liable to be dismissed without satisfactory justification for waiver?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs Medical Superintendent And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 188 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-20Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs Director, Employees' Old-Age Pension1994 PLC 569 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs Abdul Rashid And AnotherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 55 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-06Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad Qureshi vs Karachi Port Trust through Chairman and 2 others1994 PLD Karachi 140 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad Qureshi vs Karachi Port Trust Through Chairman And 2 Other1994 PLD Karachi 140 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
• Khan Gul and others vs Azim Shah and anothers1994 PLD Peshawar 204 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-03-05Read full judgment →
• Khan Gul And Other vs Azim Shah And Another1994 PLD Peshawar 204 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-03-05Read full judgment →
• Khan Ameer Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 14 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-08Read full judgment →
• Khallid Siddiqui vs Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Establishment Division And 18 Others1994 PLC (CS.) 1756 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-06-22Read full judgment →
• Khaliqullah vs Regional Commissioner of Income Tax, Northern1994 PLC (C.S.) 537 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-10-17Read full judgment →
• Khalilur Rehman and another vs Secretary, Irrigation and Public1994 SCMR 1336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-27
  ad hoc appointmentregularization of servicescivil servantsdepartmental promotioninitial recruitmentservice tribunalstop-gap arrangement
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, dismissing the appellants' service appeal. The core legal question was whether the regularization benefits granted by the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants (Regulation of Services) Ordinance, 1987 (and subsequently the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants (Regulation of Services) Act, 1988) apply to departmental promotees or are strictly restricted to direct ad hoc appointees. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory provisions for regularization of ad hoc appointments apply exclusively to initial direct recruitment pending selection through the Public Service Commission, and do not extend to civil servants who were promoted from a lower cadre on an ad hoc or officiating basis. The key principle laid down is that regularization statutes concerning ad hoc appointees target direct recruitment rather than internal departmental promotions governed by separate service rules and promotion quotas.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the benefits granted by the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants (Regulation of Services) Ordinance, 1987 apply to departmental promotees or are limited to direct ad hoc appointees?
  • Does an officiating promotion from a lower cadre as a stop-gap arrangement constitute an ad hoc appointment eligible for regularization under the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants (Regulation of Services) Act, 1988?
  • Do civil servants promoted on an ad hoc basis fall within the purview of regularization provisions intended for initial recruitments under provincial service legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalil-Uz-Zaman vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 525 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-05Read full judgment →
• Khalil-Ul-Haq Awan vs Chairman Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation, Islamabad1994 PLC (C.S.) 1677 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-02-12Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmed Soomro vs Government of Sindh And Others1994 PLC (CS.) 201 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1993-02-15Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmed and another vs Syed Hassan Shah Bukhari and others1994 MLD 903 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-15
  revision applicationconcurrent jurisdictionlowest grade courtcivil procedurerevisional jurisdictionreturn of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application was directed against an order passed by the VIIIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (South) in a civil suit involving a subject-matter value of Rs. 24,000. The core legal question addressed by the Sindh High Court was whether a revision application against an order of a subordinate court, where the subject-matter value falls within the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court, should be filed directly in the High Court or the District Court in light of concurrent revisional jurisdiction and the principle of institution in the court of lowest grade. The Court held that since the District Court possesses concurrent revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and section 15 mandates that proceedings be instituted in the court of lowest grade having concurrent jurisdiction, the revision application ought to have been filed before the District Court. Consequently, the High Court ordered the return of the memorandum of revision application along with its enclosures to the counsel for the appellants for presentation before the competent District Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a revision application against an order of a subordinate court should be filed in the District Court when both the High Court and the District Court possess concurrent revisional jurisdiction?
  • Does the principle embodied in section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require proceedings to be instituted in the court of lowest grade?
  • What is the procedure to be followed by the High Court when a revision application is erroneously filed directly instead of before the competent District Court having concurrent jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmed and 6 others vs Mst. Ahmadunnisa and 17 others1994 PLD Karachi 81 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-02Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmed And 6 Other vs Mst. Ahmadunnisa And 17 Other1994 PLD Karachi 81 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-02Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmad vs The State1994 MLD 1739 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-15Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmad vs Allah Rakhi and another1994 MLD 119 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmad Etc. vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 9) · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1993-06-14Read full judgment →
• Khalid Siddique vs The Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Excise1994 PLC (C.S.) 1524 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
• Khalid Siddique vs The Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Excise1994 PLC (C.S.) 1611 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
• Khalid Saleem vs Government of Punjab And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 277 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-23Read full judgment →
• Khalid Rafi Malik vs Election Tribunal and others1994 MLD 911 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
• Khalid Maiimood vs Abdul Qadir Shah And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 392 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-18Read full judgment →
• Khalid Javed Khalid vs Secretary, Government of Punjab And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 1440 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-16Read full judgment →
• Khalid Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 149 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
• Khalid Hayat vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 438 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-19Read full judgment →
• Khalid Azhar And Other vs Secretary, Government of Sindh, Law1994 PLC (C.S.) 1282 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
• Khali Lur-Rehman And Another vs Secretary, Irrigation and Public1994 PLC (C.S.) 972 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-27
  service tribunalad hoc appointmentregularization of servicescivil servantsdepartmental promoteesinitial recruitmentstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, filed with leave of the Court, challenges the judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, which dismissed the appellants' service appeal regarding the regularization of their services. The appellants, serving as Civil Engineers and holding posts as acting Sub-Divisional Officers (S.D.O.s) as a stop-gap arrangement, sought regularization under the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants (Regulation of Services) Act, 1988. The core legal question was whether the statutory benefits of regularization granted to provincial ad hoc employees under the 1988 Act applied to departmental promotees or were restricted solely to direct initial ad hoc appointees. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the 1988 Act applied exclusively to persons appointed on an ad hoc basis through initial direct recruitment and did not cover civil servants promoted from a lower cadre on an ad hoc basis. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the regularization benefits granted under the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants (Regulation of Services) Act, 1988 apply to departmental promotees or are restricted only to direct ad hoc appointees?
  • Does an ad hoc appointment under the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants Act, 1973 include promotions made from a lower cadre?
  • Are civil servants who are promoted to officiate on an ad hoc basis covered by the provisions of the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants (Regulation of Services) Act, 1988?
  Read full judgment →
• Khairullah vs The Presiding Officer, 1ST Sindh Labour Court, Karachi1994 PLC 638 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-05-16Read full judgment →
• Khairullah and another vs The State1994 SCMR 1066 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-11
  criminal appealmurderocular evidencecorroborationballistic reportchain of custodydeath sentenceremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the positive report of a Fire-arms Expert provides sufficient corroboration to the ocular evidence of inimical witnesses, given significant procedural lapses in the handling of crime evidence, specifically regarding the sealing of parcels, the custody of weapons, and the failure to analyze bullets recovered from the deceased. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from inherent defects and missing links that rendered the existing record insufficient to sustain the conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the judgments of the trial court and the High Court and remanded the case for further evidence. The key principle laid down is that when ocular evidence is provided by inimical witnesses, independent corroboration is mandatory. Procedural irregularities in the recovery and forensic chain of custody create reasonable doubt, and the court must ensure these gaps are clarified through the examination of relevant witnesses before adjudicating capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to send all recovered bullets for forensic analysis constitute a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the chain of custody for crime weapons and empties is broken or unclear?
  • Is it the duty of the trial court to ensure that procedural gaps in the recovery of evidence are clarified through the examination of relevant witnesses?
  • Does the positive report of a Fire-arms Expert provide sufficient corroboration to ocular evidence when the recovery process is marred by procedural irregularities?
  Read full judgment →
• Khair Muhammad vs Province of Punjab1994 CLC 470 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
• Khair Muhammad vs Additional District Judge And 2 Other1994 CLC 517 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Ghulam Muhammad1994 CLC 352 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-20Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs District Health Officer, Mirpur, Azad Kashmir And 21994 PLC (C.S.) 230 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1993-09-02Read full judgment →
• Major Zafar Iqbal vs Mst. Rehmat Jan and another1994 SCMR 339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-24
  minor custodywelfare of the minorGuardians and Wards Actmaternal-grandmother custodyleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court which handed over the custody of minor Shahbaz Zafar to his maternal-grandmother, respondent No. 1, on the ground of the minor's welfare. The core legal question involved the determination of custody of the minor among the father, mother, and maternal-grandmother, considering the fitness of the parents and the paramount consideration of the minor's welfare. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly adjudged the maternal-grandmother as the best person to have custody since the mother was residing in London and the father, with a second wife and children, was stationed in Somalia, making both parents unfit for custody under the circumstances. The key principle laid down is that while determining the custody of a minor, the paramount and primary consideration before the court is the welfare of the minor.

  Questions settled

  • What is the primary and paramount consideration while deciding the custody of a minor?
  • Whether the maternal-grandmother can be granted custody of a minor when both parents are considered unfit?
  • Does a father residing abroad with a second family have a preferential right to custody over a maternal-grandmother who has continuously cared for the minor?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Director, Public Instructions (Schools) Punjab, Lahore And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-23
  compulsory retirementmisappropriationnegligence of dutydepartmental inquiryreinstatementback benefitsservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed the appellant's appeal against an order of compulsory retirement and recovery of Rs.4,250. The appellant, a Secondary School Teacher entrusted with managing litigation for the Education Department, was accused of misappropriating funds collected for filing a writ petition and of negligence in pursuing the litigation, which led to the eviction of a school. The Enquiry Officer exonerated the appellant of misappropriation but found him negligent, whereas the competent authority reversed this, finding him guilty of misappropriation but not of negligence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the Service Tribunal failed to apply its mind to the evidence and the conflicting findings. Upon review, the Court found no concrete evidence to support either charge. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the penalties, and ordered the appellant's reinstatement in service with all back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a departmental authority impose a penalty based on a charge of misappropriation for which the Enquiry Officer exonerated the accused, without any supporting evidence on the record?
  • Whether the Service Tribunal is legally bound to independently analyze the evidence and address conflicting findings between an Enquiry Officer and the competent authority?
  • Can a civil servant be penalized for negligence in pursuing litigation in the absence of concrete evidence establishing such negligence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Director, Public Instruction (Schools) Punjab, Lahore and another1994 SCMR 418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-23
  service tribunalcompulsory retirementdepartmental inquirymisappropriationnegligencereinstatementback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court challenges the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which dismissed the appellant's appeal against the imposition of compulsory retirement and recovery of money by the departmental authority. The core legal question concerned whether the imposition of penalties for misappropriation and negligence was sustainable when the inquiry officer had exonerated the appellant of misappropriation and found no concrete evidence supporting the charges. The Supreme Court held that there was no evidence on record to establish either the charge of misappropriation or the alleged negligence in pursuing the departmental litigation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the departmental penalty and tribunal's order were set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be reinstated with all back benefits. The key principle laid down is that disciplinary penalties cannot be sustained by an authority or tribunal in the absence of tangible evidence supporting the specific charges, particularly when the inquiry officer has found no proof of culpability.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a departmental authority can find an employee guilty of a charge from which the inquiry officer has exonerated them without supporting evidence?
  • Can a penalty of compulsory retirement and recovery of amount be sustained when there is no evidence of misappropriation or negligence on record?
  • What is the effect of a service tribunal failing to apply its mind to the material facts and objections raised in a service appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain and others vs The State1994 MLD 1363 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain And Another vs Director, Trade Organization, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad And 4 Other1994 CLC 1860 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-02
  election processvoters listTrade Organizations Ordinancejudicial reviewelection scheduleconstitutional petitionChamber of Commerce
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution petition challenged the interference by the Ministry of Commerce and an appointed supervisor in the ongoing election process of the Gujranwala Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The core legal question was whether the authorities possessed the power to intervene in an advanced election process, specifically by scrutinizing and revising the voters' list after the election schedule had been announced and implemented. The Court held that the directive issued by the Ministry of Commerce on 23-2-1994, which authorized the supervisor to scrutinize and finalize the voters' list at an advanced stage, was illegal and unauthorized. The Court reasoned that the supervisor's role was limited to ensuring free and fair elections according to the pre-existing schedule, not to disrupt or suspend the process. The judgment established that once an election schedule is announced and the process is underway, external authorities cannot intervene to alter fundamental aspects like the voters' list, as statutory remedies exist under Section 9 of the Trade Organizations Ordinance to challenge election irregularities post-facto. Consequently, the election process was ordered to proceed as scheduled.

  Questions settled

  • Can an election supervisor appointed by the Ministry of Commerce scrutinize and revise a voters' list after the election schedule has been announced?
  • Does the Ministry of Commerce have the authority to suspend an ongoing election process of a Chamber of Commerce to address complaints about the voters' list?
  • Is the remedy for challenging an election voters' list available during the election process or only after its completion?
  Read full judgment →