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.

• Dr. Tariq Ahmed Shaikh vs The Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh and 3 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 1304 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-10
  writ jurisdictiontermination of servicenatural justicestatutory bodymaster and servantdisciplinary proceedingsconstitutional petitionhabitual absenteeism
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner’s service by the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases (NICVD). The core legal questions concerned whether NICVD is a 'person' amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether the dismissal violated principles of natural justice or statutory regulations. The Court held that while NICVD performs public functions and qualifies as a 'person' under Article 199, the petitioner failed to establish any violation of statutory law or rules. The record demonstrated that the petitioner was provided multiple opportunities for a hearing during the inquiry, which he failed to attend, and his dismissal was based on documented habitual absenteeism. The Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to resolve disputed facts or unsubstantiated allegations of mala fides. The key principle laid down is that where an employee is afforded a fair opportunity to participate in disciplinary proceedings but fails to do so, the resulting order is not vitiated, and writ jurisdiction is not appropriate for enforcing non-statutory service rules absent a clear statutory violation.

  Questions settled

  • Is the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases (NICVD) a 'person' amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained to challenge the termination of an employee where the service regulations are non-statutory?
  • Does the failure of an employee to participate in a disciplinary inquiry after receiving notice vitiate the subsequent termination order?
  • Can disputed questions of fact and allegations of mala fides be adjudicated within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Syed Tanveer Shah vs Registrar, University Of Agriculture, Peshawar and 4 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 495 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-06
  constitutional petitionnon-joinder of necessary partyservice matterappointment criteriastatutory interpretationwrit jurisdictionUniversity of Agriculturerescission of orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the withdrawal of the petitioner's appointment as an Assistant Professor at the University of Agriculture, Peshawar. The core legal questions were whether the petition was maintainable without impleading the University as a party, and whether the withdrawal of the petitioner's recommendation was lawful given the conflicting application of the 2000 and 2016 University Statutes. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the University of Agriculture, Peshawar, is a body corporate and a "person" under Article 199(5) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; therefore, the failure to implead it as a necessary party rendered the petition non-maintainable. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed that the selection process must strictly adhere to the N.W.F.P. Agriculture University Teachers Appointment and Scales of Pay Statutes, 2000, rather than the 2016 Statutes. The Court also established that, under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, an authority possesses the inherent power to rescind or withdraw its own orders until they have been acted upon, justifying the withdrawal of the petitioner's recommendation due to ineligibility.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable if the University, a body corporate, is not impleaded as a party?
  • Does the power to issue an order include the power to rescind or withdraw it under the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  • Can a university apply selection statutes that have been declared inapplicable by the High Court in previous judgments?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Syed Nabeel Ahmed vs Pakistan Medical and Dental Council & others2021 SHC 100 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-14Read full judgment →
• Dr. Syed Farhat Abbas, Islamabad vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto, Islamabad2021 PTD (Trib.) 157 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-02-14Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sikandar Ali Mohi-Ud-Din vs Station House Officer and othersPLJ 2021 SC (Cr.C.) 333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-23
  quashing of FIRconstitutional jurisdictionforgeryconcurrent proceedingscivil and criminal litigationtrial courtdue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that quashed an FIR registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding a forged land document. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its constitutional jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings while civil litigation concerning the same property was pending. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in law by summarily quashing the FIR, thereby bypassing the ordinary course of trial. The Court emphasized that criminal and civil proceedings can proceed simultaneously when founded on cogent grounds. The holding established that where a prima facie offence is disclosed, the High Court should not defeat the ordinary trial process through constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the trial court to proceed with the matter and decide the case on the basis of evidence brought on record within a specified timeframe. This decision reinforces the principle that criminal trials should not be prematurely terminated by constitutional petitions when factual controversies require judicial determination.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court quash an FIR in its constitutional jurisdiction when a prima facie case of forgery exists?
  • Can criminal and civil proceedings regarding the same subject matter proceed simultaneously?
  • Is it legally permissible for the High Court to summarily quash an FIR without allowing the trial court to conclude proceedings based on evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sikandar Ali Mohi Ud Din vs Station House Officer and others2021 SCMR 1486 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-23
  quashing of FIRconstitutional jurisdictionforgeryfard malkiatcivil and criminal proceedingsrevenue recordsadjudication on merits
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a High Court judgment that quashed an FIR registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the PPC regarding the alleged forgery of land revenue records (fard malkiat). The appellant contended that the FIR was based on a formal inquiry by the Revenue Department which confirmed the forgery, and that the High Court erred by summarily quashing the proceedings while factual controversies were pending. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to stifle a criminal prosecution when a prima facie offence was made out. The Court held that criminal and civil proceedings can coexist if they arise from a cogent foundation. It further ruled that the High Court should not bypass the ordinary course of trial by resorting to constitutional jurisdiction where evidence requires adjudication. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the FIR, and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings on merits within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can quash an FIR under constitutional jurisdiction when a prima facie offence is established through a departmental inquiry?
  • Can criminal proceedings and civil litigation regarding the same property coexist simultaneously?
  • Is it legally sustainable for a High Court to summarily decide factual controversies regarding forged documents instead of allowing a trial court to record evidence?
  • Whether the pendency of civil litigation is a valid ground to quash criminal proceedings involving allegations of fraud and forgery?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shuaib Kausar and another vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 527 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-17
  pre-arrest bailmedical negligenceFIR quashmentcriminal investigationSindh Healthcare Commissionmala fidesmedical malpractice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns pre-arrest bail applications and a petition to quash an FIR against medical professionals following the death of a patient after a C-section. The core legal questions were whether the accused doctors were entitled to pre-arrest bail and whether the FIR should be quashed during the investigation stage. The court held that pre-arrest bail for the primary surgeon, who performed procedures beyond his qualifications, should be recalled due to the absence of mala fides and the prima facie evidence of negligence. Conversely, bail was confirmed for other medical staff where the Sindh Healthcare Commission report indicated no negligence or where further inquiry was required. The court dismissed the application to quash the FIR, holding that the High Court should not interfere with an ongoing investigation under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 unless exceptional circumstances exist. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail requires proof of mala fides, and the court will not quash an FIR during investigation when a prima facie case exists.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court quash an FIR under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while the investigation is still ongoing?
  • Is the absence of mala fides a ground to recall pre-arrest bail in a case of alleged medical negligence?
  • Does the Sindh Healthcare Commission report constitute a valid basis for determining the grant or refusal of pre-arrest bail in medical negligence cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sheikh Akhtar Hussain vs Federation Of Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry of National Health Services, Regulation and Coordination and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 1071 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-10-13
  writ petitionmaintainabilitypremature petitionrecommendation versus decisionservice terminationdrug regulatory authorityjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by Dr. Sheikh Akhtar Hussain impugning the recommendations of the Policy Board of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (D.R.A.P.) to terminate his services as Chief Executive Officer on the ground that his Ph.D. degree was not recognized by the Higher Education Commission, and without affording him a show-cause notice or an opportunity of a hearing under the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Employees' Service Regulations, 2015. The core legal question was whether a writ petition is maintainable against mere recommendations of a recommending body when the competent authority (the Federal Government) has not yet made a final decision upon them. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that recommendations are merely advisory, inchoate, and not binding on the competent authority, and therefore do not furnish a cause of action for judicial review until a final decision is taken by the Government. The court established that a challenge against a recommendation rather than a binding decision is premature.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition is maintainable against recommendations made by a policy board before the competent authority takes a final decision thereon?
  • Do recommendations made by a recommending body give rise to a cause of action for judicial review?
  • Whether recommendations of the Policy Board of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan are binding on the Federal Government?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sheikh Akhtar Hussain vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 79 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-17
  public appointmentunrecognized degreeHigher Education Commissionlocus poenitentiaeDRAPmerit-based selectionstatutory bodyad hoc appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order by the Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination, which effectively removed the petitioner from his position as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP). The removal was predicated on the petitioner’s Ph.D. degree being unrecognized by the Higher Education Commission (HEC). The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s appointment, which relied on marks awarded for this unrecognized degree, was valid and whether his subsequent removal was lawful. The court held that the petition was misconceived. It determined that the HEC is the sole authority for recognizing foreign degrees and that an unrecognized degree is legally worthless for public appointment purposes. Because the petitioner’s merit-based selection was contingent upon marks awarded for an invalid degree, his appointment was fundamentally flawed. The court affirmed that the principle of locus poenitentiae cannot be invoked to protect rights derived from an illegal order. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that public appointments must strictly adhere to valid qualifications and that ad hoc arrangements should not persist indefinitely.

  Questions settled

  • Can a degree not recognized by the Higher Education Commission be considered a valid qualification for a public appointment?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae protect rights acquired through an illegal appointment order?
  • Can an officer holding a 'look after' charge exercise full administrative and policy-making powers?
  • Is a candidate's merit position in a competitive selection process vitiated if it is based on marks awarded for an unrecognized academic degree?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shamim Akhtar vs Principal Secretary to Chief Minister Punjab etc2021 [M] C L R 1360, 2021 KLR Civil Cases 318, 2021 LHC 2679, 2022 PLC (C.S.) · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-28
  repatriationdeputationcivil servantservice tribunalconstitutional barArticle 212tenure of deputationjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal challenged an order dismissing a writ petition against the appellant's repatriation from her deputation as Chairperson of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan, to her parent department. The core legal questions were whether the appellant, a civil servant on deputation, retained her status as a civil servant, and whether the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, precluded the High Court from exercising jurisdiction over her repatriation. The Court held that a civil servant on deputation does not lose their status as a civil servant, and the repatriation order issued by the parent department is a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service, thus falling squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212. The Court further established that a deputationist has no vested right to serve the full tenure of their deputation, and the parent department may repatriate them at any time without the necessity of a show-cause notice, provided no adverse action is taken against them.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant on deputation to an autonomous body lose their status as a civil servant?
  • Does a deputationist have a vested right to complete the full tenure of their deputation?
  • Is a repatriation order of a civil servant from a deputation post challengeable in a writ petition under Article 199, or is it barred by Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Is a show-cause notice required before the repatriation of a civil servant from a deputation post where no adverse action is taken?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sarfraz Deputy District Officer Health and others vs Malik Muhammad2021 CLC 2152 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-20Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sakar (Heart Specialist) and 4 others vs Government Of Pakistan2021 MLD 811 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-22Read full judgment →
• Dr. Pervaiz Mehmood Hashim vs Sindh Building Control Authority & others2021 SHC 1172 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-01Read full judgment →
• Dr. Nisar Ahmed Chaudhary through Special Attorney vs Government Of Punjab through Secretary Colonies, Lahore and 12 others2022 YLR 209 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-24
  constitutional petitionstate landallotment cancellationbreach of undertakingestoppelresumption of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed to challenge an order of the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue declining the restoration of an allotment and conveyance deed regarding State land originally granted to the petitioner for establishing a charitable hospital. The core legal question concerned the legality of the resumption of State land due to the petitioner's prolonged failure to construct the hospital despite multiple undertakings given before courts and extensions granted over decades. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's failure to honor voluntary judicial undertakings to complete the project invoked the doctrine of estoppel and revived the penal clauses of the original grant leading to valid resumption of the land. The court laid down the principle that the conduct of a litigant who breaches solemn undertakings given to a court disentitles them to discretionary constitutional relief, and that public property cannot be locked up indefinitely through protracted litigation and unfulfilled promises.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petitioner who fails to fulfill solemn undertakings given to a court to complete a project on State land is entitled to discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does the breach of an undertaking given to a court revive the penal clauses and conditions regarding the time limit for construction attached to a State land grant?
  • Can a litigant claim protection or extension of time on grounds of non-demarcation when such a plea was never raised during prior judicial proceedings where unconditional extensions were sought and granted?
  Read full judgment →
• Fareed and others vs The State and others2021 PLJ SC (Cr.C. ) 209, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 596, 2021 SCMR 621 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-09-29
  Qatl-Shibhi-i-amdcriminal petitionsentence reductiondying declarationblunt weapon injuryculpable homicideappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal petitions filed by the convicts and the complainant challenging the High Court's judgment, which maintained the convictions of four brothers for the Qatl-i-amd of their father but reduced their sentences from ten years to five years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the trial court and High Court correctly classified the offense under section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, as Qatl-Shibhi-i-amd, or whether the circumstances warranted a conviction under section 302(b) of the same Code, as argued by the complainant. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings, noting that while the deceased died from injuries sustained during the assault, the prosecution failed to prove the use of specific weapons or the intent required for a more severe charge. The Court held that the conviction under section 316 was legally sound, as the evidence did not support the doctrine of novus actus interveniens or a higher degree of culpability. The petitions were dismissed, affirming that the lower courts' assessment of the evidence and sentencing was within the proper remit of the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to recover weapons used in an assault preclude a conviction under section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a court sustain a conviction for Qatl-Shibhi-i-amd when the medical evidence suggests injuries were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature?
  • Under what circumstances does the doctrine of novus actus interveniens apply to homicide cases involving blunt force trauma?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Nadeem Kiani vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 CLD 33 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-11Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Yousaf vs The State, etc2021 LHC 815 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-10Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Qasim vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 626 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-08Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Jawad Jan Arif vs Dr. Ayesha Chaudhary, etc2021 LHC 3957, 2022 CLC 89 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-11Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Eshfaq Gujjar and another vs Additional District Judge2021 LHC 5486, 2022 [M] CLR 655 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Azeem Khan vs Federation of Pakistan etc2021 LHC 8251, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 783, 2022 PLD Lahore 302 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-21
  civil servants promotionsupersessionCentral Selection Boardterritorial jurisdictionconstitutional petitionfitness for promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses constitutional petitions filed by police officers (BPS-19 and BPS-20) challenging their supersession for promotion by the Central Selection Board (CSB). The core legal questions involved the territorial jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court over orders passed by federal bodies in Islamabad affecting civil servants stationed in Punjab, the maintainability of the petitions in light of Article 212 of the Constitution, and whether the CSB violated Rule 10(5) of the Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-21) Rules, 2019 by reconsidering the petitioners for promotion before they had earned one full year's PER following their prior supersession. The Lahore High Court held that it possesses concurrent territorial jurisdiction as the petitioners were affected within its jurisdiction, and that the petitions are maintainable because the determination of fitness is excluded from the Service Tribunal and the challenge pertains to the violation of mandatory promotion rules. The Court ruled that Rule 10(5) is mandatory, requiring a full year's time from the date of the previous supersession decision to allow the officer an opportunity to improve. Consequently, the Court set aside the CSB's supersession decisions as illegal and directed the reconvening of the CSB to reconsider the petitioners' cases in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Lahore High Court has territorial jurisdiction to challenge an order passed by a federal authority in Islamabad if the aggrieved civil servant is posted and affected within Punjab?
  • Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters concerning the fitness of civil servants for promotion?
  • Is a civil servant once superseded under Rule 8 eligible for reconsideration for promotion only after earning one more PER of a full year pursuant to Rule 10(5) of the Civil Servants Promotion Rules, 2019?
  • Can the High Court interfere with promotion matters in its constitutional jurisdiction when the competent authority acts in violation of mandatory promotion rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mubeenuddin & others vs Khurram Shahzad & others2021 SHC 46, 2022 P Cr. L J 1447 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-13
  medical negligencequashment of FIRSindh Health Care Commissioncriminal prosecutionprofessional misconductdisputed questions of factSection 22-A Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the quashment of an FIR registered against medical professionals for alleged negligence leading to a patient's death. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings could be initiated against doctors when the complainant had already approached the Sindh Health Care Commission, which had subsequently found the doctors guilty of professional misconduct and imposed a fine. The Court held that the petition for quashment was meritless. It reasoned that the statutory bar under Section 29 of the Sindh Health Care Commission Act, 2013, does not preclude criminal prosecution once the complainant has exhausted the remedies available under that Act. The Court further emphasized that the petition involved disputed questions of fact that required a proper trial rather than summary disposal via a quashment petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioners to seek their remedy before the trial court through applications under Section 249-A or 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as appropriate, to address their grievances regarding the cognizance taken by the Magistrate.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Sindh Health Care Commission Act, 2013, bar criminal prosecution of medical professionals after the complainant has exhausted remedies before the Commission?
  • Can a High Court resolve disputed questions of fact in a petition for the quashment of an FIR?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for an accused person to challenge the cognizance taken by a Magistrate in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mazhar Majid, M.D. through Attorney vs Ather Majid and 2 others2021 YLR 651 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-23Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mazhar Ali Jatoi vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 614 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-13Read full judgment →
• Dr. Maha Fatima Tariq vs Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore and 3 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 894 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-22
  public employmentmerit listvested rightlegitimate expectationadministrative lapsefundamental rightsrecruitment process
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition sought a direction for the issuance of an appointment letter to the petitioner as a Woman Medical Officer (WMO) following her selection by the District Recruitment Committee (DRC). The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having been selected and placed on the merit list, acquired a vested right to appointment, and whether the respondents could deny such appointment based on an administrative error regarding the category of the post. The Court held that the undisputed merit list created a vested right and a legitimate expectation in favor of the petitioner. It ruled that the petitioner could not be penalized for administrative lapses or errors committed by the department during the recruitment process. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to issue the appointment letter. The judgment establishes that public authorities must exercise their discretion fairly and transparently, and that the arbitrary denial of employment to a selected candidate violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Does the inclusion of a candidate in a merit list create a vested right to appointment?
  • Can a candidate be denied appointment due to an administrative error in the recruitment process committed by the department?
  • Does the arbitrary denial of appointment to a selected candidate violate fundamental rights under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. M. Asif and 35 others vs Government Of Punjab through Secretary2021 PLD Lahore 601 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-29Read full judgment →
• Dr. Kishore Kumar vs NAB & others2021 SHC 692, 2022 PCr. LJ 443 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-04Read full judgment →
• Dr. Khalid Zamir Rasib vs Province Of The Punjab through Secretary Higher2021 PLC (C.S.) 994 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-09
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitymaster-and-servantprivate universityfunction testpersonterms and conditions of serviceservice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before a Larger Bench of the Lahore High Court through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, filed by the petitioner to challenge his dismissal from service by the Rector of Forman Christian College-University, Lahore (FCC-U). The core legal question was whether FCC-U constitutes a 'person' within the meaning of Article 199(5) of the Constitution, thereby making a constitutional petition against it maintainable, and whether service disputes involving its employees are judiciable under writ jurisdiction. The Court held that FCC-U is a private entity operating without dominant administrative or financial control by the provincial government, lacking statutory service rules governing its employees. Applying the functional test and considering the absence of government control and statutory backing, the Court concluded that the petition was not maintainable. The key principle laid down is that a private university lacking pervasive government financial and administrative control, and whose employees are governed by non-statutory service rules, does not fall within the definition of a 'person' under Article 199 of the Constitution, barring the invocation of writ jurisdiction against it.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Forman Christian College-University is a 'person' within the meaning of Article 199(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does a university lacking pervasive government administrative and financial control fall within the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Can an employee governed by non-statutory service rules of a private educational institution invoke the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
  • Does the mere regulatory or supervisory role of the government render an educational institution an agency performing functions in connection with the affairs of the province?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Khair Muhammad Sahowal and 3 others vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary Home Department and 2 others2022 YLR 63 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-09Read full judgment →
• Dr. Karim Shah vs Chairman, Search and Nomination Council/Health2019 PHC 328, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 235, 2019 PHC 310 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-30
  master and servantmedical teaching institutionregular inquirymisconductremoval from servicedelegation of powersstatutory postwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, appointed as Hospital Director of Medical Teaching Institution D.I. Khan under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act, 2015, challenged various explanation letters, a show-cause notice, and his eventual removal from service. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the writ petitions under the master-and-servant principle, the authority of the Board of Governors' Chairperson to initiate disciplinary action independently, and the necessity of a regular inquiry when facing serious misconduct allegations. The Peshawar High Court held that because the petitioner's post was created by statute and governed by statutory rules, the master-and-servant principle did not apply, giving the court writ jurisdiction under Article 199. It further held that the Chairperson could not unilaterally delegate or exercise removal powers without the full Board, and that imposing a major penalty like removal upon serious misconduct allegations without conducting a regular inquiry violates due process and fair play. The petitions were consequently allowed, setting aside the impugned orders with liberty for fresh lawful proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the employment of a statutory post created under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act, 2015 is governed by the principle of Master and Servant?
  • Does the Chairperson of the Board of Governors possess the unilateral authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a Hospital Director without the approval of the full Board?
  • Is a regular inquiry mandatory before imposing a major penalty of removal from service upon an employee facing serious allegations of misconduct when applicable efficiency and discipline rules are silent?
  • Whether an administrative authority can delegate statutory powers of appointment or removal in the absence of express or implied statutory backing?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Jagdesh Kumar Wadhwani and others vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 988 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-10Read full judgment →
• Dr. Islam Ullah Khan Lodhi vs Ccpo, etc2021 LHC 4339, 2022 MLD 300 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-09Read full judgment →
• Dr. Iqrar Ahmad Khan vs Dr. Muhammad Ashraf and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 1259, 2021 P SC 1480, 2021 SCMR 1509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-13
  Vice-Chancellor appointmentJudicial reviewDiscretionary powersMerit principleSearch Committee recommendationsAudit parasConstitutional lawBinding precedentUniversity governancePublic appointments
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses civil appeals concerning the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor for the University of Agriculture Faisalabad. The core legal questions revolved around the applicability of the Supreme Court's HRC Order (Human Rights Case No. 13865-P of 2018) to all Vice-Chancellor appointments and the validity and justiciability of reasons provided by the Chief Minister for bypassing the highest-merit candidate. The Supreme Court held that its HRC Order laid down a rule of universal application, structuring the exercise of discretion in such appointments to prevent arbitrary decisions and uphold the principle of merit. It ruled that reasons for not appointing the highest-merit candidate must be cogent, recorded in writing, and subject to judicial review. The Court found the Chief Minister's reasons (unsettled audit paras and failure to hold syndicate meetings) to be arbitrary, contrived, and inconsistently applied, especially given the Search Committee's high evaluation of the appellant. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Lahore High Court's Division Bench judgment.

  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ilyas and another vs Government Of Balochistan through Chief2022 PLD Balochistan 58, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 770 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-12-06
  constitutional petitionappointment of Vice-ChancellorGovernor's powersadvice of Chief Ministerprovincial autonomy18th Constitutional Amendmentparliamentary democracy
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the vires of sections 15(1) and 15(2) of the Bolan University of Medical and Health Sciences Act, 2017, which empowered the Governor/Chancellor to appoint the Vice-Chancellor without the advice of the Government, Cabinet, or Chief Minister. The core legal question was whether a provision in a provincial statute can dispense with the constitutional requirement for the Governor to act on the advice of the Chief Minister or Cabinet in the performance of statutory functions. The Balochistan High Court allowed the petition, holding that sections 15(1) and 15(2) of the Act are violative of Article 105 of the Constitution and striking them down. The court laid down the principle that under the parliamentary democracy established by the Constitution, the Governor is bound to act on the advice of the Chief Minister or Cabinet in all matters, including the appointment of Vice-Chancellors of public sector universities, and cannot exercise discretionary or independent powers under any statute unless expressly authorized by the Constitution itself.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Governor of a province is bound to act on the advice of the Chief Minister or Cabinet when exercising powers under a provincial statute?
  • Are sections 15(1) and 15(2) of the Bolan University of Medical and Health Sciences Act, 2017, violative of Article 105 of the Constitution?
  • Does a Governor possess any inherent, residual, or implied powers outside those expressly conferred by the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Haroon Aziz Khan Babar vs Province Of Punjab and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 576 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-12
  constitutional jurisdictionnon-speaking orderjudicial reviewcivil serviceregularization of serviceadministrative discretionvested rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging an order passed by the Chief Secretary which sought to re-visit the petitioner's regularization and promotion as a medical professional. The core legal question was whether the administrative authority could unilaterally re-open settled promotion and regularization matters without providing specific grounds or legal justification, particularly when such actions were based on prior judicial directions. The Court held that the impugned order was legally unsustainable as it was a non-speaking, sketchy order that failed to articulate the specific facts or legal provisions justifying the re-visitation of established administrative decisions. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to pass a fresh, speaking order after hearing the petitioner, ensuring all chronological facts and legal grounds are addressed. The key principle laid down is that administrative authorities must provide clear, reasoned, and speaking orders when reviewing or challenging vested rights, and cannot bypass judicial directions or established administrative procedures through vague, unsubstantiated claims of missing facts.

  Questions settled

  • Can an administrative authority re-open a settled matter of regularization and promotion without providing specific legal grounds in a speaking order?
  • Does the mere pendency of a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal (CPLA) before the Supreme Court preclude a High Court from enforcing its own previous directions?
  • Is an administrative order that fails to specify the facts and legal basis for its decision considered a non-speaking order liable to be set aside?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Haresh Kumar and 19 others vs Federation of Pakistan and 3 others2021 SHC 404 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-28
  regularization of servicecontractual employmentlegitimate expectationright to livelihoodWAPDAconstitutional petitionfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the regularization of temporary contractual appointments of medical and nursing staff within the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The petitioners, having served for approximately seven years without adverse reports, challenged the authority's decision to force them to compete in a fresh recruitment process, arguing this violated their legitimate expectations and fundamental rights. The core legal question was whether long-serving temporary employees are entitled to regularization or preferential consideration given their experience and the absence of misconduct. The Court held that while regularization is not an absolute right, the authority acted whimsically by ignoring the petitioners' long service. Relying on the principles established in Dr. Naveeda Tufail v. Government of Punjab, the Court directed WAPDA to consider the petitioners for regular appointment through a fresh interview process in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules. The key principle laid down is that the right to livelihood is a fundamental right, and public functionaries cannot arbitrarily terminate or replace long-serving employees without due process, especially when no performance issues exist.

  Questions settled

  • Are long-serving temporary employees entitled to regularization of their services if they have performed their duties without adverse reports?
  • Does the right to livelihood constitute a fundamental right requiring protection against arbitrary termination of employment?
  • Can a public authority be compelled to consider temporary employees for regular appointment based on their experience and legitimate expectation?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ghulam Sarwar vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 976 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-27Read full judgment →
• Dr. Fateh Muhammad Burfat and 2 others vs Province Of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh and others2021 MLD 933 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-12Read full judgment →
• Dr. Farrukh Mirza vs The Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and 32021 PLC (C.S.) 526 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-26
  contempt of courtcommuted pensionpension restorationpension calculationservice matterresidual pension
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a contempt application filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance with a court order directing the restoration of his commuted pension. The core legal question was whether the respondent correctly calculated the restored commuted portion of the petitioner's pension in accordance with the Supreme Court's directives. The petitioner contended that his pension at the time of restoration should have been doubled, whereas the respondent maintained that the restoration was based on the original residual pension amount plus authorized increases. The Court held that the respondent had complied with the Supreme Court's judgment in letter and spirit. It clarified that the petitioner's method of calculating the restored pension by doubling his current monthly pension, which included various allowances, was legally misconceived. The Court affirmed that the restoration must be based on the original residual pension amount as adjusted by applicable increases, not the total current monthly payout. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed as the respondent's calculations were found to be accurate and compliant with the governing rules and judicial precedents.

  Questions settled

  • Does the restoration of a commuted pension require doubling the total current monthly pension or the original residual pension amount?
  • Can a contempt application be maintained when the respondent has complied with the court's directions in letter and spirit?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to include medical and special allowances when calculating the base amount for the restoration of a commuted pension?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Farooq Ahmed vs The Secretary FPSC & Others2021 SHC 804 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-22
  maintainabilitypreliminary objectionexhaustion of remediesrepresentationreview petitionFPSC Ordinance 1977
  Summary & questions settled

  This Miscellaneous Appeal was filed challenging the rejection of the appellant's candidature for the post of Port Health Officer (BS-18) by the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC). The respondents raised preliminary legal objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal on the grounds that the appellant failed to exhaust statutory departmental remedies before approaching the High Court. The Sindh High Court held that preliminary legal objections concerning maintainability must be decided at the very first instance. Examining the statutory framework, the Court observed that under Section 7(3) of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance 1977, an aggrieved candidate must first file a representation against an adverse decision, followed by a review petition. An appeal to the High Court under Section 7(3)(d) lies solely against a decision passed upon a review petition. Adhering to the settled principle that where a law requires a thing to be done in a specified manner, it must be done in that manner alone, the Court held the direct appeal unmaintainable. The appeal was disposed of, granting liberty to the appellant to pursue statutory remedies before the FPSC, with limitation protected.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal to the High Court under Section 7(3)(d) of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance 1977 maintainable without first exhausting the remedies of representation and review petition?
  • Must preliminary legal objections regarding the maintainability of a judicial proceeding be decided at the first instance?
  • Can an aggrieved party bypass prescribed statutory departmental remedies and directly file an appeal before the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Bhagwan Dass and another vs Habib Bank Limited2021 CLD 406 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-16Read full judgment →
• Dr. Aziz Ur Rehman and others vs Noor Bibi and others2021 CLC 106 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-22Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ashwani Kumar vs Union of India and another2021 KLR Supreme Court Cases 1, 2021 P SC 4 · Supreme Court of India · 2019-09-05Read full judgment →
• Dr. Arif Dawood Harekar vs M/s Sea Breeze (Pvt) Ltd and Ors2021 SHC 348, 2022 MLD 51 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-21Read full judgment →
• Dr. Anwar Hussain Siddiqui vs Additional District Judge, Islamabad-West2021 CLC 2005 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-12-18Read full judgment →
• Dr. Anwar Hussain Siddiqui Ex-Vice Chancellor Allama Iqbal Open2021 PLJ Islamabad 147 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Anees-ur-Rehman vs Dr. Shahbaz Mujtaba Ghauri, etc2021 KLR Civil Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-23
  zonal quotapublic service recruitmentconstitutional lawfundamental rightsdelegated legislationintra-court appealservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment addresses several Intra-Court Appeals challenging a single judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge regarding the legality of a 20% special zonal quota in public service recruitments introduced by the Government of Punjab for specific divisions and districts. The core legal questions involve whether the creation of a special zonal quota violates Article 27 of the Constitution and whether Rule 20 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 empowers the provincial government to fix such quotas. The court held that the zonal quota is unconstitutional, discriminatory based on residence and place of birth, and ultra vires the parent statute as Rule 20's permissible time period had expired and the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 does not delegate rule-making power to create zonal quotas. The key principles laid down are that delegated legislation cannot exceed the scope of the parent statute, executive notifications cannot override constitutional mandates against discrimination in public appointments, and zonal quotas in public service are unconstitutional.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the creation of a special zonal quota in public service recruitments violates Article 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does Rule 20 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 authorize the Government of Punjab to establish a special zonal quota after the expiration of the constitutional time limit?
  • Can subordinate legislation or rules provide for matters not delegated or authorized by the parent statute such as the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ali Muhammad vs Additional District Judge Islamabad-West and others2021 IHC 278 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-05Read full judgment →
• Dr. Aleem Akhter vs Muhammad Athar Shaheen and others2021 MLD 1930 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-03Read full judgment →
• Dr. Aamna Saleem Khan vs National University Of Sciences And Technology (NUST), Islamabad through Rector and 4 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 212 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-23
  maternity leavewrongful terminationfundamental rightscontractual employmentconstitutional petitiongender discriminationservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the termination of an Associate Professor by the National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST) while she was on sanctioned maternity leave. The core legal question was whether an employer can terminate a female employee’s services during her maternity leave, particularly when the employee is on a contract. The Court held that the termination was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of fundamental rights. It ordered the petitioner's reinstatement with full back benefits. The Court established that maternity leave is a fundamental right and a facet of equality and non-discrimination. It laid down that all female employees, regardless of their employment status—whether permanent, contract, ad-hoc, or daily wage—are entitled to maternity leave with pay and job protection. Furthermore, the Court ruled that no notice of termination or dismissal is valid during pregnancy or maternity leave, as such actions force women to choose between motherhood and employment, which contravenes constitutional guarantees and international obligations regarding the protection of women, family, and the right to dignity.

  Questions settled

  • Can a female employee be terminated from service while on maternity leave?
  • Does the status of employment (contractual vs. permanent) affect a female employee's right to maternity leave?
  • Is a termination notice issued during a woman's pregnancy or maternity leave legally valid?
  • Are the statutes of the National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST) considered statutory in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Farhan Masood Khan vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 550 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-22
  pre-arrest bailad-interim baildismissal for non-prosecutionsubsequent arrestcriminal revisioncustody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing a pre-arrest bail application for non-prosecution. The petitioner had been granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail in a criminal case but was subsequently arrested by the police of the same police station in a separate case and confined to jail, rendering his personal attendance impossible on the fixed date. Despite an application informing the court of his detention and requesting his production from jail, the trial court dismissed the bail petition for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether a bail petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution when an accused on ad-interim pre-arrest bail is detained by police in another case and unable to attend. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's absence was not willful and that the trial court was obligated to summon the accused from custody and decide the bail petition on its merits. The court laid down the principle that the police cannot be permitted to frustrate an ad-interim pre-arrest bail order by arresting the accused in another case, and courts must ensure the bail matter is decided on merits rather than dismissed for non-prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-arrest bail petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the accused is confined in jail in another case on the date of hearing?
  • Is a court under an obligation to summon an accused from custody to decide a pending pre-arrest bail application on merits when the absence is not willful?
  • What is the legal effect of an arrest made in another case while the accused is enjoying ad-interim pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Farhad Ali vs The State through A.A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2022 SCMR 685, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 95 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-10-01
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsfurther inquiryjuvenile offendercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition, converted into an appeal, arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner, Farhad Ali, who was implicated in case FIR No.261 under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail where no recovery was made from his direct possession or pointation and he appeared to be a juvenile at the time of the incident. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the case against the petitioner called for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, given the absence of recovery and his apparent juvenility, leaving the applicability of relevant statutory provisions to be determined by the trial court after recording evidence. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the petitioner granted bail subject to surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does a case call for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 where no recovery is made from the accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when his juvenility is apparent and no incriminating material is recovered from his possession or pointation?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr Muhammad Tahir Khan vs The Secretary of Aviation Division, etc2021 IHC 244 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-06
  civil servanteligibility vs fitnessservice tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional barpromotion disputeterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged an office memorandum regarding his eligibility for promotion, arguing he was not considered by the competent forum. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute concerning a civil servant's eligibility for promotion, or if such matters fall exclusively within the domain of the Federal Service Tribunal. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court distinguished between 'fitness' and 'eligibility' for a post. It held that while 'fitness' involves subjective evaluation by a competent authority, 'eligibility' relates to terms and conditions of service. The Court affirmed that under Article 212 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, even if allegations of mala fide or lack of jurisdiction are raised. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner's grievance regarding eligibility must be adjudicated by the Federal Service Tribunal, and thus, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute regarding a civil servant's eligibility for promotion?
  • Is the determination of a civil servant's eligibility for promotion a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service?
  • Can a High Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution if an order is alleged to be mala fide or without jurisdiction?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the authority to determine the vires of an order affecting a civil servant's rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs Mian Riaz Hussain and others2022 SCMR 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-01-10
  Specific performanceAgreement to sellBona fide purchaserSection 41 Transfer of Property ActPart performanceDelivery of possessionRegular Second Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had partially decreed Respondent No. 1's suit for specific performance regarding an agreement to sell land. The Trial Court and first Appellate Court had previously dismissed the suit, but the High Court decreed it to the extent of 80 kanals upon payment of the remaining sale consideration, while protecting a 20-kanal transfer to proforma respondents under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The main questions concerned whether the agreement to sell was duly proved, whether delivery of possession was voluntary in part performance, and whether the High Court properly protected the subsequent bona fide purchasers. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's findings, holding that Respondent No. 1 reliably proved the agreement through marginal witnesses, scribe, and stamp vendor, while the appellant's uncorroborated plea of forcible dispossession lacked credibility given his failure to seek legal remedy. The Court maintained that subsequent purchasers without notice were rightly protected, dismissing the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement to sell can be held as proved when supported by consistent testimonies of marginal witnesses, scribe, and the stamp vendor against an uncorroborated denial by the vendor?
  • Whether an unexplained failure by an educated vendor to seek legal remedy after alleged forcible dispossession supports the buyer's claim of voluntary handover of possession in part performance of an agreement to sell?
  • Whether a subsequent purchaser without notice of an earlier unregistered agreement to sell is entitled to protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
  Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad and Mehtab Ali vs The State2021 SHC 814 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-04
  narcotic possessioncriminal appealchain of custodybenefit of doubtchemical examiner reportcontradictory evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge for Control of Narcotic Substance Act, Larkana, regarding the alleged possession of narcotics. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the recovery beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the chain of custody for the narcotic samples was maintained. The High Court observed significant contradictions in the testimonies of the complainant and the mashir regarding the incident's details and the weapons carried. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to produce the official responsible for transporting the samples to the chemical examiner, thereby breaking the chain of custody. Additionally, an unexplained delay in dispatching the samples to the chemical examiner further weakened the prosecution's case. Holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine the official responsible for transporting narcotic samples to the chemical examiner break the chain of custody?
  • Is an unexplained delay in sending narcotic samples to the chemical examiner sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
  • Can material contradictions between the testimonies of the complainant and the mashir regarding the recovery proceedings warrant an acquittal?
  • Is the benefit of doubt an entitlement of the accused as a matter of right or a concession?
  Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad alias Dooso vs The State2021 MLD 772 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-22
  unlicensed firearmrecovery mashirsbenefit of doubtballistic expert reportcriminal appealSindh Arms Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 23-1(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, for possessing an unlicensed firearm. The core legal questions involved the mandatory compliance of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding public mashirs in a populated area, the evidentiary value of delayed forensic analysis of the weapon, and the shifting of the burden of proof. The Sindh High Court held that the mandatory provisions of Section 103, Cr.P.C. were violated despite the availability of public witnesses, and an unexplained delay in sending the weapon to the forensic laboratory alongside discrepancies in the weapon's description created profound doubts in the prosecution's case. The court ruled that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal as of right. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the conviction set aside, and the appellant acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether non-compliance with the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in a populated area vitiates the recovery of a weapon?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending a recovered firearm to the Forensic Science Laboratory compromise the reliability of the ballistic report?
  • Whether an accused is required to prove his innocence when the prosecution fails to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • What is the evidentiary value of police official testimony as mashirs when independent public witnesses are readily available?
  Read full judgment →
• Dollat Bibi vs Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, etc2021 [M] C L R 1465 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-17Read full judgment →
• Doctor Manzoor Hussain Malik vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 844, 2021 PLJ Lahore 347, 2021 LHC 30 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-13
  quashing of FIRtaking of cognizanceillegal organ transplantationFederal Investigation Agencycriminal investigationpremature acquittalstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the quashing of an FIR registered against the petitioner for illegal kidney transplantation under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 2010. The core legal question was whether the requirement under Section 14(2) of the Act, which restricts a court from taking cognizance of an offence except upon a written complaint by the Monitoring Authority, also prohibits the police from registering an FIR and investigating the alleged offence. The Court held that the registration of an FIR and the taking of judicial cognizance are distinct and independent concepts. It ruled that the procedural restriction on a court taking cognizance does not act as a bar to the police registering an FIR or conducting an investigation. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Federal Investigation Agency has the legal authority to investigate offences under the Act. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court noting that the petitioner may seek relief under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, once the trial court has taken cognizance.

  Questions settled

  • Does a statutory restriction on a court taking cognizance of an offence also prohibit the registration of an FIR and police investigation?
  • Are the registration of an FIR and the taking of judicial cognizance distinct and independent concepts under criminal law?
  • Does the Federal Investigation Agency have the authority to investigate offences under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act 2010?
  • Can an FIR be quashed after a trial court has already taken cognizance of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent, Quetta Postal Division and others vs Muhammad Ibrahim and others2021 SCP 402, 2022 SCMR 292, 2022 KLR Supreme Court Cases 349, 2022 PLC · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-07
  postman statuscivil servant vs workmantrans-provincial entityIndustrial Relations Act 2012federal legislative competencegrievance petitionNational Industrial Relations Commissionrepugnancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the legal status of a postman employed by the Pakistan Post Office Department and the appropriate forum for adjudicating his grievance petition. The core legal questions were whether a postman qualifies as a "civil servant" or a "workman," and which labor law governs his employment—the federal Industrial Relations Act, 2012 or the provincial Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010. The Supreme Court held that a postman, performing duties involving outdoor work, falls within the definition of a "workman" under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and is excluded from the definition of a "civil servant" under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Consequently, the Court ruled that the federal Industrial Relations Act, 2012, being a federal enactment governing trans-provincial entities, overrides the provincial Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010. The Court declared Section 1(4)(b) of the provincial Act repugnant to the Constitution and void to the extent it purports to regulate Pakistan Post employees. The principle established is that employees of trans-provincial federal departments are governed by federal labor laws, and their grievances must be addressed before the National Industrial Relations Commission.

  Questions settled

  • Is a postman employed by the Pakistan Post Office Department a civil servant or a workman?
  • Does the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 override the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010 regarding employees of trans-provincial entities?
  • Is Section 1(4)(b) of the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010 ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Which forum has the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate grievance petitions filed by workmen of the Pakistan Post Office Department?
  Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services, Gujranwala and another vs Muhammad Arif Butt2021 SCP 178, 2021 SCMR 1033, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 955, 2022 PSC 362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-31
  misappropriationmisconductpublic fundsservice lawdismissal from servicequantum of punishmentFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a Federal Service Tribunal judgment which modified a major penalty of dismissal from service to a minor penalty of stoppage of increments. The respondent, a postman, was dismissed after an inquiry confirmed he had misappropriated public funds (Rs. 36,400/-), a fact he admitted by citing personal financial needs. The Tribunal took a lenient view because the amount was recovered and the respondent had 27 years of service. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, holding that misappropriation of public money, regardless of the amount or subsequent recovery, constitutes a fundamental breach of trust and misconduct that renders an employee unfit for government service. The Court clarified that while the Tribunal has discretion under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 to modify penalties, such discretion must be exercised cautiously, in a structured manner, and supported by cogent, legally sustainable reasons. Arbitrary reduction of penalties for proven financial dishonesty was deemed unsustainable in law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery of misappropriated public funds justifies a lenient view or the reduction of a major penalty of dismissal?
  • Does the admission of temporary misappropriation for personal needs mitigate the charge of misconduct for a government servant?
  • What are the legal limits and requirements for the Service Tribunal to exercise its discretionary power under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 to modify a penalty?
  • Can a government servant who has admittedly breached the trust reposed in them regarding public money be retained in service based on length of past service?
  Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services, Faisalabad and others vs Muhammad Zafarullah2021 PLC (C.S.) 611, 2021 P SC 736, 2021 SCMR 400, 2021 SCP 12 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-11-10
  service lawmisappropriationdismissal from servicecompulsory retirementmodification of penaltydepartmental inquiryjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that converted a penalty of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement. The respondent, a postman, was dismissed following a departmental inquiry that proved allegations of misappropriating money orders. While the Tribunal upheld the findings of guilt and confirmed that all procedural formalities were followed, it modified the penalty without providing specific reasons. The Supreme Court examined whether the Tribunal's exercise of power under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1974, was lawful. The Court held that while the Tribunal possesses the power to modify departmental orders, such power must be exercised judiciously, carefully, and based on cogent reasons supported by the facts of the case. Finding the Tribunal's decision to be arbitrary, unstructured, and whimsical, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and restored the original penalty of dismissal, emphasizing that no court or tribunal has jurisdiction to grant relief without legal or constitutional support.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal can modify a departmental penalty under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1974, without recording cogent reasons?
  • Can a court or tribunal grant relief in an arbitrary or whimsical manner without the support of power granted by the Constitution or law?
  • Is the exercise of jurisdiction by a tribunal considered lawful if it modifies a penalty despite upholding the findings of guilt and procedural regularity?
  • Does the failure to challenge a tribunal's finding of guilt preclude a respondent from reopening the merits of the case during an appeal against the modification of penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent Postal Services Jhang and another vs Siddique2021 P SC 1411, 2021 SCMR 1398, 2021 SCP 274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-07-08
  misappropriationmisconductbreach of trustservice appealgovernment servantpenalty of dismissalpublic money
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals by leave of the Court against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had converted the dismissal of two Postmen into a lesser penalty of withholding increments. The respondents were found guilty of misappropriating money orders by forging payee signatures and utilizing the funds for personal use. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal erred in taking a lenient view and reducing the penalty despite the respondents' admitted misappropriation and breach of trust. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's judgment. The Court held that misappropriation of public funds, regardless of the amount or whether the act was temporary or permanent, constitutes serious misconduct and a fundamental breach of trust. The Court reaffirmed that a government servant found guilty of such dishonesty is unworthy of the confidence reposed by the State and has no place in government service. Consequently, the original penalty of dismissal from service was restored, emphasizing that strict adherence to rules and regulations is mandatory for those handling public money.

  Questions settled

  • Does the temporary misappropriation of public money by a government servant constitute grounds for dismissal?
  • Can a service tribunal reduce a penalty of dismissal for a government servant found guilty of misappropriation?
  • Is the return of misappropriated funds by a government servant sufficient to absolve them of liability for misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi and others vs Syed Usman Ali and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 898, 2021 SCMR 1008, 2022 PSC 303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-08
  regularizationdaily wagerstemporary labour appointmentpakistan railwaysservice lawregularization policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter addresses appeals concerning the date of regularization of daily-wagers and Temporary Labour Appointment (TLA) workers employed by Pakistan Railways. The core legal question is whether the respondent employees, appointed in 2006/2007, are entitled to be regularized from the date of their initial appointment or from the date specified in the applicable regularization policy. The Supreme Court reviewed the chronological sequence of Regularization Policies from 1985, 2000, 2008, and 2012, holding that the 1985 policy was restricted to ad-hoc employees and substitutes appointed up to 26.12.1992 and did not apply to the respondents. Similarly, the 2008 policy required three years of service by a specific cut-off date which the respondents had not met. The Court held that the respondents were validly and properly regularized under the Regularization Policy of 2012 with immediate effect, and could not claim regularization from their initial appointment. The impugned judgments were set aside and the appeals were allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether daily-wagers and Temporary Labour Appointment workers of Pakistan Railways can claim regularization from the date of their initial appointment under the Regularization Policy of 1985?
  • Does the Regularization Policy of 2008 apply to employees who had not completed three years of service by the cut-off date of 08.09.2007?
  • Whether regularization under the Regularization Policy of 2012 takes effect from the date of initial appointment or with immediate effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Divisional Accounts Officer, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi and another vs Muhammad Yaseen (Deceased) through LRs and others2022 SCMR 815, 2022 PSC 1443, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 765 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-12-23
  pensionmedical allowancemove-overcivil servicepension drawnFederal Service Tribunallimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal and review petition arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal allowing a retired civil servant's service appeal regarding medical allowance rates. The deceased respondent, a Pakistan Railways employee who opted for move-over to BS-16 and retired drawing pension accordingly, claimed a higher 25% medical allowance applicable to BS-15 pensioners rather than the 20% allowed for BS-16 pensioners under the Office Memorandum dated 05.07.2010. The core legal question was whether entitlement to medical allowance under the said Office Memorandum depended on the employee's substantive pay scale or on the actual pension drawn based on last drawn pay. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the clear terms of the Office Memorandum made "pension drawn" the determining factor. Having drawn pension based on his last drawn pay in BS-16, the employee was properly paid medical allowance at 20%. The Court affirmed that an employee cannot claim pension benefits in BS-16 while simultaneously claiming allowances meant for BS-15, as law does not permit claiming double benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether medical allowance payable under the Office Memorandum dated 05.07.2010 is calculated on the basis of actual pension drawn or the substantive grade of the civil servant?
  • Can a retired civil servant who opted for move-over to a higher pay scale claim pension in that higher scale while simultaneously claiming medical allowance at the higher percentage reserved for lower pay scales?
  • Whether a service appeal filed before the Federal Service Tribunal seeking interpretation of an Office Memorandum regarding allowance rates is subject to the law of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• District Manager, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, Lahore vs Excise And Taxation Officer, Zone No. 10, Lahore and 4 others2021 PLD Lahore 86 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-19Read full judgment →
• District Education Officer (Female), Charsadda & others, Secretary S_f58e1b072022 SCP 404, 2023 SCMR 217, 2023 PLC (C.S.) 392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-09-29
  Primary School Teacher appointmentdomicile certificateCNIC addresspermanent residencelegitimate expectationrecruitment rulesstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns five civil petitions challenging Peshawar High Court judgments regarding the appointment of Primary School Teachers (PSTs). The core legal question was whether a candidate’s permanent residence for recruitment purposes should be determined by the address on their Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) or their Domicile Certificate, specifically under Section 3 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Appointment, Deputation, Posting and Transfer of Teachers, Lecturers, Instructors and Doctors) Regulatory Act, 2011. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that a Domicile Certificate serves as the primary, authoritative document for establishing a candidate's permanent residence. The Court reasoned that CNIC addresses may reflect temporary dwelling, whereas domicile represents a fixed, permanent legal status. It ruled that interpreting the 2011 Act to prioritize CNIC addresses over domicile certificates would render the latter redundant. Furthermore, the Court applied the doctrine of legitimate expectation, noting that the department allowed candidates to compete and qualify based on their submitted credentials, making their exclusion at the final stage unfair. The judgment establishes that domicile certificates hold superior evidentiary weight for determining permanent residence in public recruitment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Domicile Certificate take precedence over a CNIC address for determining permanent residence in public sector recruitment?
  • Can a public authority exclude a candidate from recruitment based on a discrepancy between CNIC and domicile addresses after the candidate has qualified through the merit process?
  • Does Section 3 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Appointment, Deputation, Posting and Transfer of Teachers, Lecturers, Instructors and Doctors) Regulatory Act, 2011, mandate that CNIC addresses supersede domicile certificates for determining permanent residence?
  • Does the doctrine of legitimate expectation apply to candidates who have qualified in a recruitment process but are subsequently excluded due to administrative discrepancies?
  Read full judgment →
• Director-General (Headquarters) Civil Works Organization through Authorized Officer vs Haji Banaras and 2 others2021 YLR 1222 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-07Read full judgment →
• Director, Directorate General, Karachi, Intelligence & Investigation2021 SHC 298 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-01Read full judgment →
• Director, Directorate General, Intelligence And Investigation (Customs) and another vs Aurangzaib and others2021 PTD 1026 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-24Read full judgment →
• Director, Directorate General, Intelligence & Investigation vs Awais & Others2021 SHC 140 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-21Read full judgment →
• Director, Directorate General Intelligence And Investigation FBR vs Shaukat2021 PTD 754 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-11
  bail cancellationcustoms duty evasionunder-invoicingadjudication proceedingsmisuse of bailcriminal miscellaneous application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from special criminal miscellaneous applications filed by the Directorate General Intelligence and Investigation FBR challenging an order of the Special Judge Customs whereby bail was granted to the respondents in a case registered under the Customs Act, 1969 for alleged under-invoicing and evasion of duty and taxes. The core legal questions relate to whether sufficient grounds exist for the cancellation of bail once granted, and the impact of a favorable adjudication proceeding on ongoing criminal proceedings. The court held that bail once granted should not be cancelled lightly in the absence of misuse of concession, absconsion, tampering with evidence, or an order absolutely contrary to the record, and noted that a favorable adjudication outcome creates a doubt that benefits the accused even at the bail stage. The key principles laid down are that remote probabilities requiring deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be the basis for recalling bail, and that criminal courts will consider favorable administrative adjudications when assessing the tentative assessment of guilt for bail purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail once granted be cancelled without showing clear-cut violation of law or specific grounds such as misuse of bail or absconsion?
  • Does a favorable adjudication in departmental proceedings create sufficient doubt to support maintaining bail in related criminal proceedings?
  • Whether remote probabilities involving the deeper appreciation of evidence can justify the cancellation of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Director Postal Life Insurance, Lahore vs Shakeel Ahmad2021 SCP 192, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 1559, 2021 SCMR 1162, 2022 PSC 1227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-05
  service appealdepartmental inquirymajor penaltydue processshow cause noticeproportionality of punishmentappellate authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified a penalty imposed on a civil servant from a reduction in pay scale to a minor penalty of 'Censure'. The Respondent, a Clerk, faced departmental proceedings for alleged negligence and double payments. While an Inquiry Officer recommended only a severe warning, the competent authority imposed a major penalty, which the Appellate Authority subsequently enhanced. The core legal question was whether the authorities acted lawfully in imposing and enhancing these penalties without sufficient evidence or procedural fairness. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the authorities failed to provide cogent reasons for disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer's findings and lacked documentary evidence to substantiate the charges. Furthermore, the Court held that the Appellate Authority committed a material procedural error by enhancing the penalty without issuing a show-cause notice or providing the Respondent an opportunity to be heard. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that disciplinary actions must be based on established evidence and comply with due process requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate authority enhance a penalty imposed on a civil servant without issuing a show-cause notice?
  • Is a competent authority required to provide cogent reasons when disagreeing with the findings of an Inquiry Officer?
  • Does the lack of documentary evidence to support charges of misconduct justify the setting aside of a major penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Director Intelligence & Investigation (Customs) vs Nasir Ul Haq & anotherPTCL 2021 CL. 457, 2022 PTD 1193 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-13Read full judgment →
• Director General, Provincial Disaster Management Authority (Pdma), Balochistan and others vs Amirullah and others2021 PLD Balochistan 211 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-23Read full judgment →
• Director General, National Savings Central Directorate of National Saving, Islamabad and others vs Muhammad Sultan and others2021 P SC 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-17
  civil servantabsorption in service18th Constitutional Amendmentpromotion channelservice tribunal jurisdictiondevolution of ministriescareer progression
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the service rights of employees absorbed into the Central Directorate of National Savings following the devolution of their original ministry under the 18th Constitutional Amendment. The core legal question was whether these absorbed employees, having attained civil servant status, were entitled to automatic promotion channels and re-designation, and whether the Federal Service Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in directing the department to frame rules for such promotion. The Supreme Court held that while the absorption letter conferred civil servant status, it did not guarantee an automatic right to promotion. The Court affirmed the Federal Service Tribunal's direction, ruling that the department must establish a regulatory framework for promotion. The ratio established is that absorption into government service provides job security, but career progression remains contingent upon the employee meeting prescribed legal qualifications and criteria. Consequently, the Court directed the department to frame appropriate rules to allow these civil servants to be considered for promotion, ensuring compliance with the law while addressing the unique circumstances of their induction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absorption of contract employees into government service due to the 18th Constitutional Amendment automatically confer a right to promotion?
  • Can a Federal Service Tribunal direct a department to frame recruitment rules for the promotion of civil servants?
  • Does the status of a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act 1973 guarantee a right to career progression without meeting prescribed qualifications?
  Read full judgment →
• Director General, Directorate General Of Training And Research (Inland2021 SCMR 710 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-03-02
  service matterunauthorized absencedepartmental proceedingspenalty reductionService Tribunals Actdisciplinary actiondismissal from servicecompulsory retirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which reduced a major penalty of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement for a government employee absent without leave. The respondent, a UDC, remained absent for over eight months and failed to participate in departmental proceedings despite receiving multiple notices. While the Tribunal acknowledged the respondent’s absence was deliberate and contumacious, it nonetheless reduced the penalty, citing domestic circumstances. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the Tribunal’s exercise of discretion was lawful. The Court held that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 to modify penalties must be exercised judiciously, with circumspection, and supported by cogent, record-based reasons. Finding that the Tribunal’s decision lacked such justification and that the respondent’s conduct was obstructive, the Court ruled the reduction arbitrary. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment and restored the original penalty of dismissal, emphasizing that leniency without valid grounds undermines consistent standards in the administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the authority to reduce a penalty imposed by a departmental authority?
  • Can the Federal Service Tribunal reduce a disciplinary penalty without recording cogent and record-supported reasons?
  • Is an employee's deliberate and contumacious absence from duty a valid ground for the imposition of a major penalty?
  • Must the exercise of the Tribunal's jurisdiction to modify penalties be based on evidence rather than arbitrary compassion?
  Read full judgment →
• Director General Federal Directorate and another vs Tanveer Muhammad2021 PLC (C.S.) 602, 2021 PLJ SC 187, 2021 SCMR 345, 2021 SCP 22 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-12-18
  service tribunalmisconductdismissal from serviceharassment at workplacemodification of penaltydepartmental proceedingscriminal acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil petition for leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which partly allowed a service appeal by converting the respondent employee's penalty of dismissal from service into the withholding of increments for five years. The respondent, a Chowkidar at an educational institution, had been dismissed following an internal inquiry that found him guilty of physical assault, use of abusive language, and harassment against a female school employee within the school premises. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in modifying the major penalty imposed by the department without recording legally sustainable reasons. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal acted arbitrarily and without lawful justification in reducing the penalty, noting that the charges of gross misconduct were fully established through eye-witness accounts, a medical report, and a fair internal inquiry, and that the acquittal in criminal proceedings had no bearing on independent departmental proceedings. The Court laid down the principle that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1974, the Tribunal must record legally sustainable reasons and exercise its discretion in a structured and regulated manner rather than casually observing that a penalty is disproportionate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether acquittal in criminal proceedings constitutes a basis for interfering in independent departmental proceedings?
  • Can the Federal Service Tribunal modify a major penalty imposed by a department without recording legally sustainable reasons?
  • Does physical assault of a female colleague within an educational institution constitute gross misconduct justifying dismissal from service?
  Read full judgment →
• Director General Customs Valuation vs M/s. Indus Trading Co. & others2021 SHC 1216 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-08Read full judgment →
• Director General Civil Aviation Authority through Airport Manager, Quetta2021 YLR 848 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-27Read full judgment →
• Director General (Headquarters) Civil Works Organization, Rawalpindi2021 CLC 909 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-07
  land acquisitionexecution petitionlimitationdoctrine of mergerenhanced compensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from the dismissal of objection petitions by the executing court concerning the execution of a decree for enhanced land compensation. The core legal question was whether the execution petition was barred by limitation, having been filed more than three years after the initial Referee Court award, but within three years of the High Court's appellate judgment upholding the award. The court held that under the doctrine of merger, when a lower forum's judgment is affirmed, modified, or reversed by a higher forum, it attains finality from the date of the higher forum's decision, making the limitation period run from that final adjudication. The key principle laid down is that the doctrine of merger applies to appellate decisions, and the period of limitation for execution is computed from the date of the final appellate judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of merger apply when a lower court judgment is affirmed by a higher forum?
  • From which date is the limitation period for filing an execution petition calculated when an appeal has been decided by a higher forum?
  • Are execution petitions filed within three years of the final appellate judgment considered within time?
  Read full judgment →
• Director Directorate of Pca (Customs) vs M/s. Abdul Ghaffar & 34 others2021 SHC 236 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-25Read full judgment →
• Director (I&I) (Inland Revenue), Islamabad and others vs Naeem SiddiquePTCL 2021 CL. 746, 2021 PTD 1047 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-12-11
  sales tax fraudcriminal prosecutiontax liability determinationdue processvalidation clauseultra viresSales Tax Act 1990
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order by the Special Court (Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling) discharging the respondent from a criminal case involving alleged sales tax fraud. The core legal questions were whether criminal prosecution for tax fraud could be initiated before the underlying tax liability was formally determined by the relevant tax authorities, and whether the validation provided by Section 74A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, retrospectively authorized criminal proceedings initiated under an SRO previously declared ultra vires. The Court upheld the discharge order, ruling that criminal prosecution for tax fraud cannot proceed until the tax liability is definitively determined through the departmental hierarchy. The Court affirmed that criminal proceedings under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, require a prior, credible determination of tax liability to satisfy due process and fair trial requirements under the Constitution. Furthermore, validation provisions cannot be stretched to retrospectively authorize criminal prosecutions that were invalidly initiated at the time, as this would infringe upon fundamental rights, and the authorities may only agitate the matter afresh after the tax liability is settled.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal prosecution for tax fraud be initiated under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, before the underlying tax liability has been determined by the competent tax authorities?
  • Does the validation provision in Section 74A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, retrospectively authorize criminal proceedings that were invalidly initiated prior to its enactment?
  • Is a determination of tax liability under Section 11 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, a prerequisite for initiating criminal prosecution for tax fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• Dipika Jagatram Sahani vs Union of India and Others2021 SCInd 24 · Supreme Court of India · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
• Dinshaw Hoshang Anklesaria vs National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through Chairman and others2021 PLJ SC 269, 2021 SCMR 699 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-01-06
  post-arrest bailNAB referenceundue incarcerationExit Control Listamenity landpolitical influencetrial commencement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the Islamabad High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference. The petitioner, a director of a construction firm, was accused of utilizing political influence to illegally acquire and amalgamate state land with amenity land, causing significant loss to the public exchequer. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, the duration of his incarceration, and the status of the trial. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner had been incarcerated for twenty months without the trial commencing, that the prosecution's evidence was primarily documentary, and that other co-accused were at liberty. Furthermore, the Prosecutor General, NAB, did not oppose the bail. The Court held that the petitioner had established a case for bail, emphasizing the right to liberty pending trial when the conclusion of proceedings is not in sight. Consequently, the Court granted bail, subject to the petitioner furnishing bail bonds and placing his name on the Exit Control List.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when the trial has not commenced after a significant period of incarceration and the prosecution's evidence is primarily documentary?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant bail in a NAB reference if the Prosecutor General, NAB, does not oppose the petition?
  • Does the fact that co-accused are enjoying liberty constitute a valid ground for granting bail to a petitioner in a corruption reference?
  Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad vs The State etc2021 PHC 184 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-21Read full judgment →
• Din Badshah and 5 others vs Balay Khan (Deceased) through L.Rs2021 MLD 1793 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-22Read full judgment →
• DILSONs (Private) Limited and others vs Security & Exchange Commission2021 LHC 5599 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dilsons (Private) Limited and others vs Securities And Exchange2021 CLD 1317 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-25
  mergeramalgamationscheme of arrangementpre-merger clearancecommercial wisdomcompetition lawshareholders approvalvertical integration
  Summary & questions settled

  The Lahore High Court heard a petition under Sections 279 to 283 and 285 of the Companies Act, 2017, seeking sanction for a Scheme of Arrangement and merger between four private limited companies. The primary objective of the merger was to create a single vertical business structure to enhance operational management. The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) and the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) raised initial objections regarding financial disclosures, share capital, and mandatory pre-merger clearances. The Court noted that the petitioners subsequently complied with all statutory requirements, including obtaining No Objection Certificates from secured creditors and securing pre-merger clearance from the CCP under Section 11 of the Competition Act, 2010. The Court held that when a scheme is approved by the requisite majority of shareholders and is not fraudulent, unfair, or contrary to public policy, the Court should not substitute its judgment for the commercial wisdom of the shareholders. Finding all legal formalities fulfilled, the Court sanctioned the Scheme.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Court can substitute its own judgment for the commercial wisdom of shareholders when sanctioning a merger scheme?
  • Is clearance from the Competition Commission of Pakistan a mandatory prerequisite for the effectiveness of a merger under the Competition Act, 2010?
  • What are the primary duties of a sanctioning Court when reviewing a scheme of arrangement under the Companies Act, 2017?
  • Can a merger scheme be sanctioned if it lacks the approval of the requisite majority of creditors or members?
  • Under what circumstances may a Court refuse to respond as a 'rubber stamp' and reject a proposed scheme of arrangement?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilsher Alias Hamid vs Adeel & others2021 SHC 70 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12
  acquittal appealbenefit of doubtpresumption of innocenceFIR delayocular evidencemedical evidenceappellate interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This acquittal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial Magistrate, which acquitted the private respondents of charges related to forming an unlawful assembly and threatening the complainant. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the trial Court’s acquittal was based on improper assessment of evidence, thereby warranting appellate interference. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial Magistrate correctly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents. The Court noted significant delays in lodging the FIR, which suggested deliberation and consultation, and observed a conflict between medical and ocular evidence. Relying on the principle established in State vs. Abdul Khaliq (PLD 2011 SC 554), the Court reaffirmed that the scope of interference in an acquittal appeal is narrow. The presumption of innocence is doubled upon acquittal, and appellate courts should not interfere unless the judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or suffers from gross misreading of evidence. Finding no such errors in the trial Court's decision, the High Court declined to disturb the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal?
  • Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR, coupled with conflict between medical and ocular evidence, justify the benefit of doubt?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilshad vs International Islamic University through its Rector, Islamabad2021 IHC 312, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 939 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-09
  date of birth correctionlocus poenitentiaeservice recordintra-court appealnon-statutory ruleswrit jurisdictionestoppel by conduct
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an employee of the International Islamic University, Islamabad, challenged the withdrawal of an order that had previously permitted the correction of her date of birth in her service record. Having initially recorded her date of birth as 1961 upon appointment, she sought to change it to 1967 near her retirement, relying on a civil court decree obtained without impleading her employer. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the Intra-Court Appeal, affirming the Single Judge's decision. The Court held that the principle of locus poenitentiae cannot be invoked to protect an order based on incorrect facts or to perpetuate an illegality. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the date of birth recorded at the time of joining service is final, and attempts to alter it belatedly, particularly near retirement, are to be discouraged. Additionally, the Court noted that the University's rules are non-statutory, rendering the constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 incompetent regarding service matters not governed by statutory rules.

  Questions settled

  • Can the principle of locus poenitentiae be invoked to protect an order obtained on the basis of incorrect facts?
  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 maintainable against an organization whose rules and regulations are non-statutory?
  • Can a civil servant seek the correction of their date of birth in their service record after a long period of service?
  • Does a civil court decree regarding a date of birth change bind an employer who was not impleaded as a party in the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilshad Khan vs The State and another2022 YLR 831 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-03-08
  pre-arrest bailbail before arrestQatl-i-Amdprohibitory clauseplea of alibimala fidecriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by the petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 22/21 registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Shams Colony, Islamabad, for the murder of his ex-wife. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner has made out a case for the extraordinary remedy of pre-arrest bail, particularly in view of his direct nomination in the FIR with a specific role, eyewitness testimony, and the absence of established mala fide or a valid plea of alibi at the investigative stage. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that pre-arrest bail cannot be granted to hamper investigation or as a substitute for post-arrest bail without demonstrating exceptional circumstances or mala fide, and recalled the ad-interim bail previously granted. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy requiring clear proof of mala fide to divert the ordinary course of criminal investigation and arrest in heinous offenses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted in a case involving an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without establishing mala fide?
  • Can a plea of alibi be considered for the grant of pre-arrest bail without recording evidence before the trial court?
  • Whether anticipatory bail can be used as a substitute for post-arrest bail to hamper the investigative process and recovery of weapons?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilnawaz Khan etc vs Mst Naik Bibi2021 PHC 128, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 120, 2022 YLR 418 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-22Read full judgment →
• Dildar alias Darro Umrani vs The State2021 YLR 2360 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-19
  murderextortionbhattaocular evidencerelated witnessesmedical corroborationweapon recoveryforensic ballistic matchanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Larkana, convicting the appellant under section 302(b) read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, as well as section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance, following a shooting incident at a scrap shop arising from an extortion dispute. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related eye-witnesses, the corroboration of ocular testimony through medical evidence and forensic weapon recovery, and the sufficiency of the prosecution's case. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence and a positive forensic report matching the crime weapon with empties recovered from the spot. The court laid down the principles that mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not render them interested if their presence is natural and unimpeached, that failure to prove motive is not fatal where direct ocular evidence is trustworthy, and that forensic matching of crime weapons and recovered empties provides strong corroborative proof.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased?
  • Is the failure of the prosecution to prove motive fatal to a murder case where direct ocular testimony is available and reliable?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a positive forensic report matching crime empties with a weapon recovered on the pointation of an accused?
  • Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained when the ocular account is fully corroborated by medical and forensic evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Dildar Ahmad vs The State etc2021 SCP 390, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 48, PLJ 2022 SC (Cr.C.) 19, 2022 PSC (Crl.) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-11-04
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquirybenefit of doubtsuppression of injuriesmedical board reportprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had declined the petitioner's request for pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 337-F(v) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the conflicting medical reports and the suppression of injuries sustained by the petitioner during the same incident. The Supreme Court observed that the initial medical board report suggested the possibility of fabrication regarding the complainant's injury, and noted that the complainant failed to appear before the subsequent Provincial Standing Medical Board. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner had sustained five injuries which were suppressed by the prosecution, creating a prima facie doubt regarding the authenticity of the case. Consequently, the Court held that the case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court established that where a prima facie doubt exists regarding the prosecution's version, the benefit of such doubt can be extended to the accused at the bail stage, particularly when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the bail stage if the prosecution's case appears doubtful?
  • Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused during an occurrence entitle them to the concession of bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilawar vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 998 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-09-25
  narcotic possessionchain of custodyreasonable doubtcriminal appealsafe custody of samplesforensic science laboratory reportacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial court for the possession of 12 kg of narcotics (chars garda) under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of the contraband and maintained the chain of custody of the case property and samples. The High Court found significant discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence, specifically noting that the weight and physical state of the recovered packets contradicted the FIR, and the chain of custody was broken due to the non-examination of key witnesses and the failure to account for the delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case is sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused, and that the failure to prove the safe custody of case property and samples is fatal to the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the weight of narcotics stated in the FIR and the weight found during trial proceedings create a reasonable doubt?
  • Is the failure to examine the official responsible for the custody of case property fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory affect the prosecution's case?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the safe custody of contraband from the time of seizure until its production in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Khan vs Station House Officer, Police Station Fia/Cc, Multan and 32021 CLD 1279, 2022 P Cr.L J 30 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-04
  copyright infringementFIA jurisdictionIPO-Pakistan Actprocedural compliancestatutory interpretationFIR quashingintellectual property rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the jurisdiction of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to register and investigate First Information Reports (FIRs) regarding copyright infringement under the Copyright Ordinance, 1962. The petitioner challenged the FIA's authority, arguing that the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012 (IPO-Pakistan Act) is a special law requiring complaints to be routed through the Intellectual Property Organization, and that the FIA lacks jurisdiction over private copyright disputes. The Court held that while the FIA is empowered to investigate offences under the Copyright Ordinance due to its inclusion in the FIA Act's Schedule, the IPO-Pakistan Act establishes a specific mechanism for handling such complaints. The Court determined that complainants must first approach the Organization, which then refers the matter to the appropriate law enforcement agency. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned FIR for bypassing this mandatory procedure. The key principle laid down is that the IPO-Pakistan Act provides a comprehensive, mandatory framework for addressing intellectual property offences, and the FIA cannot entertain such complaints directly without prior processing by the Organization.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Investigation Agency have the jurisdiction to directly register an FIR for copyright infringement under the Copyright Ordinance, 1962?
  • Is the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012, a special law that mandates a specific procedure for initiating investigations into intellectual property offences?
  • Does the absence of rules framed under the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012, render the enforcement provisions of the Act inoperative?
  • Can the Federal Investigation Agency investigate copyright infringement cases involving private parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Dil Nawaz Khan and 3 others vs Mst. Nek Bibi and 3 others2021 PLJ Peshawar 120 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-22Read full judgment →
• Dil Araam and another vs Sherzada and 6 others2022 YLR 605 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-17Read full judgment →
• Dhani Bux vs Province of Sindh & others2021 SHC 784 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-17Read full judgment →
• Dhani Bux Jagirani vs Manzoor Kalhoro and 8 others2021 YLR 684 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-14
  criminal acquittal appealbenefit of doubtburden of proofpresumption of innocenceappreciation of evidencemurdercontradictory evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the trial court’s acquittal was legally sustainable. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a credible case, noting significant contradictions regarding the timing of the post-mortem, the presence of police at the scene, and material improvements in the complainant's testimony. Emphasizing that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution, the Court reiterated that any single circumstance creating doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the judgment is found to be perverse, arbitrary, or capricious, as a presumption of double innocence attaches to an order of acquittal. The trial court's reasoning was deemed sound and free from legal error.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate court have the authority to interfere with an acquittal judgment if it is not found to be perverse, arbitrary, or capricious?
  • What is the legal effect of material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding the timing and circumstances of a crime?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial, and what is the consequence if a single circumstance creates doubt?
  • Does the presumption of double innocence apply to an order of acquittal in an appeal?
  Read full judgment →