SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, CJ 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
 
C.P.No.4683 of 2018 
[Against the judgment dated 22.10.2018, passed by the Federal Service 
Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No.64(R)CS/2017] 
 
 
Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary, 
Ministry 
of 
Law 
& 
Justice 
Division, 
Islamabad. 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
Mamoon Ahmed Malik. 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s) 
: Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, Additional 
Attorney General 
Arshad Ali Siddique, S.O. Ministry 
of Law 
 
  
For the Respondent (s) 
: Ms. Shireen Imran, ASC 
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 11.05.2020 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
Gulzar Ahmed, CJ.— The respondent was employed 
as an Assistant (BPS-14) in the Law and Justice Division, 
Government of Pakistan on probation. During his probationary 
period, he remained absent from duty from 05.09.2011 to 
02.04.2012, pursuant thereto, his service was terminated vide 
Office Order dated 02.04.2012. It is claimed by the respondent that 
against this order of termination, he filed a departmental appeal 
dated 13.04.2012, which he dispatched through courier service, 
receipt whereof is attached at Pages-35/36 of the record.  
2. 
 
In the first place, we note that the very departmental 
appeal is addressed by the respondent directly to the Secretary, 
3-C.P.No.4683 of 2018 
- 2 - 
 
 
 
Law and Justice Division and not through proper channel. We also 
note that the courier receipt attached with the memo of appeal at 
Pages-35, seems to be fake, for that, as per letter dated 29.03.2016 
of Manager Operation, PIA SpeedEx, Rawalpindi/Islamabad 
(available at Pages-36), the said receipt has no nexus whatsoever 
with the sending of the departmental appeal, rather it deals with 
some consignment sent through PIA SpeedEx by the Federal 
Investigation Agency from its corporate account and was delivered 
in Islamabad to one, Naseer, PSO Project NTS. This, in itself, 
shows that the respondent has conducted himself in a manner, 
which amounts to deception and he could have been proceeded 
against by this Court on that account.  
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the respondent has contended 
that in the impugned office order, the leave period have been 
treated as an Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) and thus, having done 
so, no further punishment could have been imposed upon the 
respondent.  
4. 
 
We note that such an argument is not tenable in view 
of two unreported judgments of this Court, one dated 06.02.2020, 
passed in the case of NAB through its Chairman vs. Muhammad 
Shafique (Civil Appeal No.1618 of 2019) and other dated 
10.02.2020, passed in the case of Kafyat Ullah Khan vs. Inspector-
General 
of 
Police, 
Islamabad 
and 
another 
(Civil 
Appeal 
No.1661/2019). 
5. 
 
The fact that the respondent remained absent from 
duty from 05.09.2011 to 02.04.2012, is not disputed rather an 
admitted fact. It is also admitted fact that the respondent was 
3-C.P.No.4683 of 2018 
- 3 - 
 
 
 
employed as a probationer. We have also looked at the office order 
of the termination of service of the respondent, which shows that it 
is a case of termination simplicitor, with no allegation whatsoever 
mentioned therein. The Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (the 
Tribunal) in the impugned judgment, has though found the 
respondent to have remained absent from duty, but merely on the 
point that his absence period has been treated as an EOL and 
further, no regular enquiry was conducted, set aside the office 
order dated 02.04.2012 and the respondent was directed to be 
reinstated in service.  
6. 
 
So for the question of EOL is concerned, we have 
already noted two judgments of this Court and as regards the issue 
of regular enquiry, there being no dispute about the fact of 
respondent remaining absent from duty, no question arose for 
holding of a regular enquiry, for that, the enquiry is held only when 
there are disputed facts.  
7. 
 
In view of the above, we find that the impugned 
judgment of the Tribunal suffers from legal infirmity and is not 
sustainable in law. The same is liable to be set aside. 
Consequently, this petition is converted into an appeal and 
allowed. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal dated 22.10.2018 
is set aside and the Officer Order dated 02.04.2012, terminating 
the service of the respondent is restored.   
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
Bench-I 
ISLAMABAD 
11.05.2020 
NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING 
Rabbani*/ 
JUDGE 
3-C.P.No.4683 of 2018 
- 4 - 
 
 
 
 
