IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, C.J. 
Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan 
Mr. Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 985 OF 2020 
(Against 
the 
judgment 
dated 
21.11.2019 of the K.P.K. Service 
Tribunal, Peshawar passed in 
Appeal No.961/2018) 
 
 
Secretary Elementary & Secondary Education Department, 
Government of KPK, Peshawar and others 
 
…Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
Noor-ul-Amin 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the appellant(s): 
Mr. Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Additional 
Advocate General, KPK 
 
 
For the respondent(s): 
Mr. Khaled Rahman, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
22.02.2021 
… 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Gulzar Ahmed, C.J.- The respondent was employed 
as 
Primary 
School 
Teacher 
(“PST”) 
in 
the 
Education 
Department of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. He was granted ex-
Pakistan leave from 02.12.2012 to 01.12.2014 vide order dated 
31.12.2012. As the respondent did not report to duty on expiry 
of his ex-Pakistan leave, he was issued show-cause notice dated 
24.10.2017. As the respondent did not report for duty despite 
issuance of notice in the newspaper, therefore, vide order dated 
03.01.2018 the respondent was removed from service. The 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 985 OF 2020 
-: 2 :-
respondent filed service appeal before the KPK Service Tribunal 
(“Tribunal”) which by the impugned judgment was partly 
allowed by converting the major penalty of removal from service 
into a major penalty of compulsory retirement with effect from 
the date of his absence i.e. January, 2013 and the absence 
period was treated as unauthorized absence. While doing so, the 
Tribunal in paragraph No.6 dealt with the matter as follows:- 
“6. 
Perusal of the record reveals that the 
appellant 
was 
serving 
in 
Education 
Department as Primary School Teacher. He 
was appointed as Primary School Teacher 
in the year 2000. The appellant was 
imposed major penalty of removal from 
service but the respondent-department has 
not conducted a proper regular inquiry as 
neither charge sheet statement of allegation 
was framed and served upon the appellant 
nor any regular inquiry was conducted 
against 
the 
appellant. 
Though 
the 
respondent-department has issued a show-
cause notice but neither the respondent-
department 
has 
dispensed 
the 
regular 
inquiry in the show-cause notice nor any 
reason for dispensing the regular inquiry 
has been mentioned in the show-cause 
notice. 
Moreover, 
the 
appellant 
was 
appointed as Primary School Teacher in the 
year 2000 and he was imposed major 
penalty of removal from service on the 
allegation of his absence from duty with 
effect from January 2013 meaning thereby, 
that he was having more than 10 years 
service in his credit with effect from his 
appointment till his absence, therefore, the 
impugned order of removal from service appear 
to be harsh. As such, we partially accept the 
appeal, set aside the impugned order and 
convert the major penalty of removal from 
service into a major penalty of compulsory 
retirement with effect from the date of his 
absence i.e. January 2013. The absence period 
is treated as unauthorized absence. Parties are 
left to bear their own costs. File be consigned to 
the record room.” 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 985 OF 2020 
-: 3 :-
It may be noted that the Tribunal has proceeded to modify the 
penalty on two counts; one that no regular inquiry was 
conducted and the other that the respondent has 10 years 
service. So far the question of regular inquiry is concerned, we 
note that the very fact of respondent remaining absent is not a 
disputed fact and thus there was no occasion for holding a 
regular inquiry in the matter. Reliance in this behalf can be 
placed upon the judgment reported as National Bank of 
Pakistan and another Vs. Zahoor Ahmed Mengal (2021 SCMR 
144). 
2. 
 
Being an employee for 10 years did not give any 
authority to the respondent on the basis of which he can stay 
away from job continuously for years altogether and thus in our 
view, such ground could not have been pressed for modifying 
the penalty imposed by the department upon the respondent 
giving premium to him on this misconduct. More so, when we 
look at the travelling history of the respondent given at page 15 
of the paper-book it shows that almost twelve times the 
respondent has visited abroad and returned to Pakistan 
showing that he has some other activities and thus was not 
interested in continuing as PST. We, therefore, find that the 
modification of penalty by the Tribunal was not in accordance 
with law. In this behalf reliance can be placed upon the 
judgments reported as Commissioner Faisalabad Division, 
Faisalabad and another Vs. Allah Bakhsh (2020 SCMR 1418) 
and Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary Vs. 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 985 OF 2020 
-: 4 :-
Muhammad 
Arshad 
and 2 others (2020 SCMR 1962). 
Resultantly, 
the 
impugned 
judgment 
to 
the 
extent 
of 
modification of penalty is set aside and the appeal to this extent 
is allowed. 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
22nd of February, 2021 
Approved for reporting 
Waqas Naseer/* 
