SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, CJ 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10 OF 2021 
 
[Against the judgment dated 11.06.2019, passed by the Federal Service 
Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No.3343(R)CS/2017 with MPs] 
 
 
 
Senior General Manager/CEO, Pakistan 
Railways 
Headquarters, 
Lahore 
and 
others. 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
Versus 
Abdul Rauf Shamoon. 
…Respondent(s) 
 
  
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Mr. Jawad Mehmood Pasha, 
ASC 
Naveed 
Mubashar 
Ch. 
D.S. 
Multan 
 
  
For the Respondent(s) 
: Mr. Zubair Hussain Jarral, ASC 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR 
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 19.04.2021 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
 
GULZAR AHMED, CJ.- The respondent was employed 
as an Engine Driver in Pakistan Railways. He was issued charge-
sheet and statement of allegations dated 25.10.2016. He 
submitted his reply dated 30.10.2016. Enquiry Committee was 
constituted, which conducted the regular enquiry and ultimately 
gave finding that the respondent was guilty of commission of 
offence and recommended awarding of major punishment to the 
respondent. The respondent was dismissed from service vide order 
dated 15.04.2017. He filed departmental appeal, which came to be 
regretted vide order dated 05.07.2017. The respondent filed 
CA.10 of 2021 
- 2 - 
 
 
 
service appeal in the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (the 
Tribunal). The service appeal was heard and vide impugned 
judgment dated 11.06.2019, the same was partly allowed by 
converting penalty of dismissal from service into that of 
compulsory retirement from the date of his dismissal.  
2. 
 
Leave to appeal was granted on 08.01.2021, relevant 
portion of which is as follows: - 
 
 
“The learned counsel for the petitioners contends 
that the train being driven by the respondent 
collided with a stationary goods train and 
tremendous loss of Rs.120,000,000/- (Rupees 
twelve crore) on that account was caused to the 
Pakistan Railways and even the operation of 
railways on the line was gravely effected. During 
this incident, four persons also lost their lives. 
Further contends that such collusion was on 
account of respondent’s violating the red signal in 
that he was required to stop the train when there 
was a red signal but instead he continued driving 
the 
train 
and 
ultimately 
collided 
with 
the 
stationary/goods train.”    
 
3.   
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and 
have also gone through the record of the case.  
4. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that 
on account of respondent’s misconduct the accident had taken 
place and in this regard in the preliminary enquiry so also in the 
regular enquiry the respondent was found responsible for the said 
accident and pursuant to the recommendation of the regular 
enquiry committee, he was imposed penalty and there was no 
CA.10 of 2021 
- 3 - 
 
 
 
occasion for the Tribunal to have interfered with reducing the 
penalty from dismissal to that of compulsory retirement.  
5. 
 
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent 
has supported the impugned judgment and contended that 
respondent has denied the charges. He has further contended that 
it was a case of contributory negligence as other employees were 
also proceeded in the same incident, who were awarded minor 
penalties. The learned counsel relied upon the case of Jan 
Muhammad vs. The General Manager, Karachi Telecomunication 
Region, Karachi and another (1993 SCMR 1440).  
6. 
 
The Tribunal in the impugned judgment has noted that 
collusion of trains has taken place and the respondent was 
admittedly a driver of the train, which collided with the stationary 
Goods Train. The Tribunal found that the respondent was bound 
to follow the signals and while nothing the fact that the signal 
man has also been punished concluded that there was a fault in 
the entire system and the case being of a contributory negligence, 
the respondent cannot be exonerated from his negligent act, at the 
same time interfered with the quantum of penalty imposed upon 
the respondent considering his 36 years’ service.  
7. 
 
The charge against the respondent, as contained in the 
statement of allegations, was that while working on 14 Down 
(Awan Express) Train on 15.09.2016, he was responsible for 
collusion of 14 Down in the rear of stationary Down ZBKC Special 
Goods Train at KM 61/2-3 between SSH-SJB stations on Multan 
Cantonment-Lodhran Double Line. He was further charged of 
being responsible in running the Train at excessive speed after 
CA.10 of 2021 
- 4 - 
 
 
 
passing LXD-4 signal at danger. He did not even apply emergency 
brakes resulting in catastrophic accident. He was further charged 
that after stopping at LXD-4, which signal was at danger, he was 
required to proceed further upto the next auto signal with a 
cautious speed. He was further charged that of failure to have 
good lookout and to control his Train. He was further charged that 
he violated Rules 6 (a) & (b), 122, 259 (b) and 260 of the General 
and Subsidiary Rules. The respondent has submitted his reply 
dated 30.10.2016, in which he has not denied the allegations 
made against him in the statement of allegation but gave his own 
version in the following manner:- 
 
 
“As far as GR-259(b) is concerned the train 
stopped at LXD-4 gate signal and afterward the 
LXD-4 gate signal change her aspect and train left 
for the next block section ahead. Is this action for 
stopping the train at LXD-4 signal being red not 
sufficient to declare our vigilancy and good 
outlook? So these allegations are not attributable 
toward the undersigned as far as the question of 
accelerating train speed is concerned no hard and 
fast orders were issued from time to time in regard 
the LXD/LXU signals because they are not falling 
under the definition of an automatic signal.  
 
 
As far as the violation of GR-6 (a) & (b), it is 
pointed out that I observed the LXD-4 signal in 
danger position and stopped my train at LXD-4 
signal, after availing two minutes stoppage I start 
my train on hand signal of the gate man. No 
sooner my train move LXD-4 signal changed her 
aspect to green, so allegation of violation of GR-6 
(a) & (b) does not arise.  
CA.10 of 2021 
- 5 - 
 
 
 
 
 
As concerned to application of emergency 
brakes it is pointed out that the tail lamp of ZBKC 
was not burning and the range of head light of 
ZCU locomotives is 180 to 200 metres and 9 
seconds will take to cover this distance at the 
speed of 80 KMPH. Whereas 2 to 3 second will 
take for mentally preparation and the brakes of 
ZCU locomotives take place in 3 to 5 seconds, 
remaining 4 seconds are not sufficient to stop the 
train. The burning spots will only appear when the 
train braking power will be extra ordinary tight 
otherwise no such sign and symptom will be 
appear. This is an unexpected incident and 
everything is being assumed.” 
 
 
 
8. 
 
It is noted that LXD-4 signal was showing red light 
that is danger position and respondent seems to have stopped the 
train at the said signal. He stopped the train for only two minutes 
and then started the train at hand signal of a gate man. Learned 
counsel for the respondent was asked to show as to who was the 
gate man who gave the hand signal, he stated that such gate man 
has not been examined in the enquiry. We may note that 
respondent himself having taken defence that he has started the 
train on hand signal of a gate man, it was incumbent upon the 
respondent to have positively proved this very aspect of his 
defence but the respondent did not produce the gate man, who is 
said to have given the hand signal for starting the train.  
9. 
 
Further, the respondent has stated that no sooner the 
train moved, LXD-4 signal changed her aspect to green. Again the 
learned counsel for the respondent was asked to show what is the 
evidence on the record, which could establish that when the train 
CA.10 of 2021 
- 6 - 
 
 
 
was moved by the respondent, the signal became green. Learned 
counsel for the respondent replied that there is no evidence to 
substantiate this defence of the respondent.  
10. 
 
We may note that the train, which was being driven by 
the respondent, met with a catastrophic accident causing 
substantial loss to the property of Pakistan Railways so also the 
loss of human lives and the respondent in his reply has merely 
taken an evasive stand, rather on its close reading appears to 
have admitted that he has moved the train while signal was red in 
the danger position.  
11. 
 
The factum of two defences taken by the respondent of 
hand signal of a gate man and signal turning to green having not 
been established, it becomes clear that the respondent violated 
the red danger signal. Further, the respondent has accelerated the 
train to the speed of 80 kilometres per hour and that he did not 
apply emergency brakes, these charges have not been denied by 
the respondent. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment has not 
considered these very important aspects of the matter, which the 
respondent has admitted in his reply to the charge-sheet. 
12. 
 
As noted in the leave granting order the accident has 
caused direct monetary loss of Rs.120,000,000/- (one hundred 
and twenty million) to the Pakistan Railways and it also took lives 
of four innocent persons and looking at the conduct of the 
respondent, there was no ground on the basis of which the 
Tribunal could have interfered with the imposition of penalty of 
dismissal imposed upon the respondent. No ground whatsoever 
were available to the Tribunal for doing so. The judgment relied 
CA.10 of 2021 
- 7 - 
 
 
 
upon by the learned counsel for the respondent deals with the 
procedure of holding of an enquiry, to which there is no cavil, but 
here the case is one where the respondent in his reply to the 
charge-sheet has admitted the facts that he has stopped the train 
on the red signal for two minutes and then moved the train when 
the signal was red and accelerated it to a speed, where it could not 
be stopped by him nor did he apply the brakes. The Tribunal has 
also found the respondent responsible for such accident and has 
not exonerated him from the same but converted the penalty from 
dismissal to compulsory retirement.  
13. 
 
In view of the above, we allow the appeal and restore 
the order of imposition of penalty of dismissal from service upon 
the respondent.  
14. 
 
Above are the reasons of our short order of even date.  
 
 
 
 
  
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
Bench-I 
 
Islamabad 
19.04.2021 
‘APPROVED FOR REPORTING’ 
Rabbani/* 
JUDGE 
 
