IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, CJ 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 1033 OF 2020 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 08.01.2020 
passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in 
Appeal No. 878(R)CS/2019) 
 
Member (Administration), Federal Board of Revenue etc 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
VERSUS 
 
Mian Khan 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. M.D. Shahzad Feroz, ASC 
 
 
For the Respondent: 
N.R.  
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
26.04.2021 
… 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this petition under 
Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, 
the petitioners have assailed the judgment dated 08.01.2020 passed by 
the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby the Service Appeal 
filed by the respondent was accepted, whereby the penalties of 
compulsory retirement and reduction to the lower rank awarded to him 
were set aside.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that the respondent 
being Havaldar, Customs Headquarter, Model Customs Collectorate was 
posted at New Islamabad International Airport and was assigned the 
duty of checking and diverting the passengers towards Customs 
Counters. On the basis of a CCTV footage showing that the respondent 
was allegedly receiving bribe from the two passengers, he was proceeded 
against departmentally. The authorized officer i.e. Additional Collector 
(HQ) after dispensing with the regular inquiry, issued him show cause 
notice on 15.10.2018. The respondent submitted his reply on 30.10.2018 
and was also afforded an opportunity of personal hearing but being 
dissatisfied with the reply, the Authorized Officer recommended for 
imposition of major penalty of compulsory retirement against the 
Civil Petition No. 1033/2020 
-: 2 :-
respondent, which was concurred by the Collector vide order dated 
16.11.2018. The respondent filed appeal against the penalty imposed. 
The appellate authority on the appeal filed by the respondent vide order 
dated 16.04.2019 converted the major penalty of compulsory retirement 
into major penalty of reduction of lower rank as such he was demoted to 
the rank of Sepoy under Rule 4(1)(b)(ii) of Government Servants (E&D) 
Rules, 1973 for a period of three years, as such he was reinstated into 
service. The respondent challenged both the aforesaid orders i.e. dated 
16.11.2018 & 16.04.2019 before the Federal Service Tribunal, 
Islamabad, and the same have been set aside by the Tribunal vide 
impugned judgment. Hence, this petition seeking leave to appeal.  
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contended that 
while passing the impugned judgment, the learned Federal Service 
Tribunal did not take into consideration that the CCTV footage clearly 
showed that the respondent was taking bribe from the passengers; that 
when the footage was clear, unambiguous and authentic then there was 
no need to hold regular inquiry but, even despite of clear evidence against 
him he was given personal hearing both by the Authorized Officer as well 
as by the Competent Authority but the respondent could not provide any 
plausible explanation to rebut the accusation leveled against him. He 
lastly prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment.  
4. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some 
length and have perused the available record.  
5. 
 
It is an admitted fact that no regular inquiry was conducted 
by the petitioner Department and the same was dispensed with on the 
ground that the other evidence in the shape of CCTV footage is so 
authentic that major penalty can be imposed upon the respondent in the 
absence of regular inquiry and while imposing the major penalty CCTV 
footage was made the sole criterion to proceed against the respondent. It 
is an apathy that the said CCTV footage was never sent to the office of 
Forensic Science Laboratory for its authenticity. In the absence of any 
forensic report qua the authenticity of the CCTV footage, the same cannot 
be considered a legal basis for proceeding against a person. In the case 
of Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2019 SC 675) 
this Court has held that with the advancement of science and technology, 
it is now possible to get a forensic examination, audit or test conducted 
through an appropriate laboratory so as to get it ascertained as to 
whether an audio tape or a video is genuine or not and as such 
Civil Petition No. 1033/2020 
-: 3 :-
examination, audit or test can also reasonably establish if such audio 
tape or video has been edited, doctored or tampered with or not because 
advancement of science and technology has also made it very convenient 
and easy to edit, doctor, superimpose or photoshop a voice or picture in 
an audio tape or video, therefore, without a forensic examination, audit or 
test, it is becoming more and more unsafe to rely upon the same as a 
piece of evidence in a court of law. We have noticed that the CCTV 
footage was even not produced before the learned Federal Service 
Tribunal. Even otherwise, mere producing of CCTV footage as a piece of 
evidence without any forensic test is not sufficient to be relied upon 
unless and until corroborated and proved to be genuine. The passengers, 
who allegedly gave the bribe, had also not been associated with the 
departmental proceedings. No question of law of public importance within 
the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973, has been raised either in this petition to warrant 
interference by this Court.  
6. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we are of the 
considered view that the learned Service Tribunal has passed a well 
reasoned judgment to which no exception can be taken. This petition 
having no merit is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. 
Before parting with the judgment, we may observe that departmental 
proceeding in such a casual way by the departmental authority inviting a 
public servant into litigation for considerable time should be avoided 
because at the one side, it wastes time of the court of law and on the 
other it causes physical stress, loss of reputation in public eyes, which 
ultimately leads to mental agony for a public servant, which has no legal 
or moral justification.  
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
26th of April, 2021 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
