IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
Present: 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, HCJ 
Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan  
 
 
 Civil Appeal No.370 of 2020 
(Against the judgment dated 
3.3.2017, 
passed 
by 
the 
Punjab 
Service 
Tribunal, 
Lahore, in Appeal No.377 of 
2014) 
 
 
Commissioner Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad 
and another 
 
... Appellant (s) 
 
Versus 
 
Allah Bakhsh son of Mian Muhammad, Patwari 
Halqa, Chak No.490/JB, Tehsil Shorkot, District 
Jhang 
 
 
… Respondent (s) 
 
 
For the Appellant (s)  
: Ch. Faisal Fareed, 
Addl. Advocate General, Punjab 
Mr. Babar Hayat Tarar, 
Sr. Member, Board of Revenue 
Mr. Ishrat Ali, 
Commissioner, Faisalabad 
Mr. Faizan Ahmad, 
A.C., Shorkot 
 
  
For Respondent (s) 
: Mr. Shahid Azeem, ASC 
Mr. Ahmad Nawaz Ch., AOR with 
Respondent 
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 01.07.2020 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
GULZAR AHMED, CJ.- The Senior Member, Board of 
Revenue, Punjab (SMBR) has appeared before the Court and filed a 
Report showing that as many as four persons were involved in making 
the present matter time-barred (at petition stage). Out of those four 
persons, one has expired and against remaining three, disciplinary 
proceedings have already been initiated. The matter is at the stage of 
passing of the final order by the Competent Authority. Such Report of 
Civil Appeal No.370 of 2020 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2
SMBR is kept on the record. As explained in the said Report and for 
the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay, the 
delay is condoned and in such terms, the application is disposed of. 
2. 
 
On the merits of the case, the learned Additional Advocate 
General, Punjab has contended that the respondent had admitted the 
fact of signing the mutation of Government land in favour of one Iqbal. 
Despite such admission of the respondent, the Punjab Service 
Tribunal (the Tribunal) found such commission on the part of 
respondent to be not misconduct, and the penalty of dismissal from 
service, imposed upon him, was found to be not commensurate with 
the gravity of the offence. The penalty thus imposed on the respondent 
by departmental authorities was converted into forfeiture of two years’ 
approved service.  
3. 
 
We note that such manner of dealing of the appeal filed by 
the respondent before the Tribunal is totally not in accordance with 
the law. Where the respondent himself has admitted the commission 
of the offence that he has transferred Government land measuring 270 
Kanals, situated in Chak No.492/JB, District Jhang, causing loss of 
millions of rupees to the Government exchequer, such conduct of the 
respondent could not be considered as mere negligence, rather it 
constitutes misconduct and maximum penalty under the law has to be 
imposed upon him.  
4. 
 
We also note that the Tribunal has for a considerable time 
been taking a lenient view of misconduct by government servants even 
where an employee of the Department has admitted the commission of 
an offence constituting serious misconduct or the offence has been 
proved through inquiry. Despite this, the Tribunal reduced the penalty 
imposed upon such an employee by the Authority/Department, 
Civil Appeal No.370 of 2020 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3
considering the same to be harsh and not commensurate with the 
gravity of the offence, without assigning any legally sustainable 
reasoning by stating that the Tribunal enjoys “vast powers” under 
Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 to confirm, set aside, vary 
or modify orders passed by the departmental authorities. The question 
is how “vast” are the powers of the Tribunal and whether these powers 
are discretionary, at the whims of the Tribunal and totally 
unstructured and unlimited.  
5. 
 
It is important to note that the Government properties and 
the Government funds are not to be doled out by the Government 
officials, either to private persons or to themselves, and such conduct 
amounts to fraud upon the Government and person(s) committing 
fraud or embezzlement of the Government property or money could, in 
no circumstances be treated leniently in disciplinary proceedings and 
in appropriate cases, be allowed to continue in the service.  
6. 
 
The respondent was proceeded against departmentally by 
issuing of a Show Cause Notice and the Statement of Allegations 
against him. An inquiry was conducted and the requirements of 
natural justice were duly complied with. We note that the judgment of 
the Tribunal holding that the respondent had been given harsh 
punishment and the punishment was not commensurate with the 
gravity of the offence, is altogether misplaced; more particularly, when 
looked at from the point of view that the respondent has 
transferred/mutated Government land in favour of private parties, 
causing huge loss to the Government exchequer.  
7. 
 
The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent 
that no loss has been caused to the Government because the land in 
question was later taken back by the Government is of non-
Civil Appeal No.370 of 2020 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4
consequence in the facts and circumstances of the present case, even 
if true. When the conduct of the respondent came to light, the 
Government machinery took steps to rectify such transfer of the 
Government land to the private persons. The mere fact that despite 
commission of the offence no loss was caused to the Government 
exchequer or the loss caused was recovered cannot be a mitigating 
factor in punishing a government servant whose misconduct stands 
established. If he gets off scot free or with a minor penalty what is 
there to prevent him from repeating the same offence and the next 
time loss may actually be caused and not recovered. This is the 
inherent flaw in the argument of the learned counsel for the 
respondent.   
8. 
 
The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent 
is that even if he has committed some misconduct, the appellants were 
not justified in passing the order of dismissal against him, is 
misconceived and without substance. Once misconduct is established, 
it is the prerogative of the department to decide on the quantum of 
punishment, out of the various penalties provided in law. Unless the 
Tribunal finds exercise of such prerogative by the departmental 
authority to be perverse and totally disproportionate to the gravity of 
the offence/misconduct for which reasons have to be recorded penalty 
imposed by the departmental authorities cannot be interfered with. 
Such reasons must valid and meet the standards of logical and 
judicial reasoning. The powers of the Tribunal under Section 5 of the 
Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 to confirm, set aside, vary or 
modify orders appealed against are neither discretionary nor 
unbridled. Such powers have to be exercised cautiously, carefully and 
with circumspection where the order imposing the penalty is wholly 
perverse or ex facie so demonstratably disproportionate and excessive 
Civil Appeal No.370 of 2020 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5
for the offence/misconduct, that to let it stand would be unfair, unjust 
and inequitable. Further, where powers are exercised under Section 5 
ibid, detailed reasons must be recorded justifying such exercise which 
would withstand the test of judicial scrutiny by this Court. The 
Tribunal has in this case reduced the penalty without much ado and 
no reasoning although the respondent was found guilty of misconduct 
by all fora in all departmental proceedings.  
9. 
 
In this view of the matter, we have found the order of the 
Tribunal to be self contradictory in excess of jurisdiction and devoid of 
any reasoning let alone cogent and legally acceptable. The impugned 
judgment of the Tribunal can therefore not be sustained. The appeal is 
accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. 
Consequently, the order passed against the respondent for his 
dismissal from service is restored. Copy of this order be supplied to the 
Chairman as well as the Members of the Federal Service Tribunal and 
all the Provincial Service Tribunals. 
 
 
 
Chief Justice        
 
 
 
Islamabad, the, 
1st July, 2020 
 
Mahtab H. Sheikh/* 
 
                                              ‘APPROVED FOR REPORTING’ 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
