IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, CJ. 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED 
  
Civil Petition Nos.4185 of 2019,  
4209 of 2019 & 4504 of 2019 
(Against the judgment dated 28.10.2019 of the  
Punjab Service Tribunal passed in Appeal No.2872/2014) 
 
 
Dr. Sohail Hassan Khan  
(in C.P. No.4185-2019) 
Muhammad Javed Nayyer 
(in C.P. No.4209-2019) 
Dr. Shamas-ul-Hassan 
(in C.P. No.4504-2019) 
 
…..Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
 
Director General (Research), Livestock & Dairy Development 
 
Department, Punjab, Lahore & others  
(in all cases) 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the petitioner(s) 
 
Mrs. Shireen Imran, ASC 
(in C.P. No.4185 & 4209/2019) 
Mr. Abdul Rahim Bhatti, ASC 
(in C.P. No.4504/2019) 
 
For Respondents(s):  
N.R. 
Date of hearing: 
20.08.2020. 
 
 
 
 
 
 … 
 
 
 
 
       ORDER 
  
  Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J-. In a long drawn 
struggle, marred by consecutive failures, the petitioners are resigned 
in the last ditch to save their jobs; they were at the helm in various 
capacities in the Poultry Research Institute at Rawalpindi. The 
episode started in the wake of massive earthquake that devastated/ 
jolted Azad Jammu & Kashmir with adjoining parts of Khyber 
Pakhtunkhaw in the year 2005. With an unprecedented intensity, 
the seismic vibrations followed by aftershocks resulted into colossal 
loss of life and property. Rescue and rehabilitation efforts with the 
assistance of foreign donors started soon after the disaster. The Food 
& Agricultural Organization, a specialized agency of the United 
Nations Organization, joined the efforts by detaching substantial 
Civil Petition Nos.4185 of 2019, 4209 of 2019 & 4504 of 2019 
 
 
 2 
  
  
 
assistance through the good offices of the Asian Development Bank 
to provide poultry package for, “immediate support to poor and 
vulnerable households in inaccessible areas devastated by the 2005 
earthquake”. The Poultry Research Institute Rawalpindi was tasked 
to reach out the victims with aid package. Dr. Shamas-ul-Hassan, 
Dr. Sohail Hassan Khan and Muhammad Javed Nayyar were posted 
as 
Director, 
Assistant 
Director 
and 
Office 
Superintendent, 
respectively; 
they 
were 
required 
to 
procure 
100,000 
birds, 
standard/specification whereof, with mode of transportation, were 
settled by the donor through letter dated 13th of June, 2007. It 
appears that 51228 birds were purchased from designated 
government outlets while for the provision of the remainder, the 
petitioners ventured on their own; it is in this backdrop that a 
private supplier, namely, Abdul Saboor lodged complaint with the 
Director General Livestock Lahore alleging surreptitious unilateral 
modifications in the supply contract regarding 25000 birds; he 
blamed them for reduction in the settled price as well as withholding 
of income tax besides charging commission on each bird. The 
complaint was probed into and the department vide order dated 
5.8.2011 decided to proceed against them on the following charges: 
i. 
They engaged in private business of supplying poultry birds 
in earth quake hit areas in their official capacities, abusing 
their position. 
ii. 
They opened and operated fake departmental account/s for 
these fraudulent transactions. 
iii. 
They made an estimated profit of Rs.4.306 million by 
procuring poultry birds of questionable quality from private 
poultry farms at rock-bottom rates and supplying the same 
to various agencies including FAO at hefty rates, pocketing 
the differential. 
iv. 
They received a sum of Rs.0.295 Million as commission 
from a farmer Mr. Abdul Saboor R/o Mohallah Shah Jamal, 
Gakhar Mandi. 
 
Mr. Farhan Aziz Khawaja, a grade 20 officer of PAS, was appointed as 
inquiry officer. After a regular inquiry followed by personal hearing, the 
Chief Minister vide order dated vide order dated 14.06.2012 compulsorily 
retired Dr. Shamas-ul-Hassan with a direction to recover Rs.4.601 million 
along with Rs.4.306 million and Rs.0.295 million, received by him through 
the impugned transactions. Dr. Sohail Hassan Khan petitioner was 
awarded major penalty of removal from service; Muhammad Javed Nayyar 
Civil Petition Nos.4185 of 2019, 4209 of 2019 & 4504 of 2019 
 
 
 3 
  
  
 
petitioner was also dismissed from the service; they petitioned before the 
Chief Minister for a review; an elaborate exercise already undertaken and a 
considered decision notwithstanding, the Chief Minister, nonetheless, 
passed the following order: 
“After due examination of the facts of the case, contents of 
the review petition and averments made by the review 
petitioners before the Hearing Officer, it is observed that the 
accused officers have very vehemently contended that 
neither they were given a fair opportunity of hearing nor fair 
trial was given to themselves. They also contended that the 
responsibility was not apportioned according to their job 
description/official role. Therefore, the order of penalty 
dated 14.06.2012 is set aside and a de novo proceeding is 
ordered against the accused officers namely Dr. Shamas-ul-
Hassan, Ex-Director, PRI, Rawalpindi, Dr. Sohail Hassan 
Khan, Ex-Assistant Director, PRI and Mr. Javed Nayyar, 
Office Superintendent, PRI, Rawalpindi. The A.D. may put 
up a panel of suitable officers for appointment of an Inquiry 
Officer to conduct de novo proceedings in the case.” 
 
Dr. Muhammad Shabbir Shahid, Director (HQR) Directorate General (Ext) 
L&DD Punjab conducted de novo inquiry. With nothing additional, the 
second inquiry officer came up with amazing conclusions, best described 
as self destructive; he benignly recommended forfeiture increments, albeit 
after holding them guilty of misconduct under the Punjab Employees 
Efficiency Discipline & Accountability Act, 2006, a best possible package 
under the circumstances. The competent authority/Secretary L&DD 
Department Lahore remitted the matter for reconsideration of proposed 
penalty whereupon the inquiry officer came up with a slightly higher wage; 
this time, he recommended compulsory retirement for Dr. Shams-ul-
Hassan petitioner while suggested forfeiture of five increments for  
Dr. Sohail Hassan Khan with additional reduction to lower post for 
Muhammad Javed Nayyar, petitioner. The Secretary, however, restored 
penalties suggested by the first inquiry officer except for conversion of 
dismissal of Muhammad Javed Nayyar, petitioner, into removal from 
service. Appeal before the Chief Secretary failed on 13.08.2014 followed by 
failure before the Punjab Service Tribunal on 28.07.2015. The petitioners 
approached this Court and the matter was once again remanded on 
4.3.2019 to the Service Tribunal for decision afresh. The Service Tribunal 
maintained its findings vide judgment dated 28.10.2019, vires whereof are 
being jointly assailed by the learned counsel; it is contended, in unison,  
that after petitioners’ exoneration from the proceedings of Anti Corruption 
Department, their position stood vindicated and there was no occasion for 
Civil Petition Nos.4185 of 2019, 4209 of 2019 & 4504 of 2019 
 
 
 4 
  
  
 
the authorities to departmentally proceed against them; that the penalties 
inflicted upon the petitioners are disproportionately harsh as in the 
absence of positive proof, forfeiture of increments as recommended by the 
second inquiry officer was a more conscionable treatment in circumstance; 
that in any case, enhancement of penalty required reasons in support 
thereof, according to the learned counsel, hopelessly lacking in the 
impugned order; that mere opening of accounts without any proof of 
wrongful gain would not warrant to seal a long career otherwise 
unblemished, concluded the learned counsel after relying on a number of 
cases structured in different factual backgrounds.  
2. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
3. 
 
It is by now well settled that a civil servant cannot escape 
departmental proceedings or consequences thereof on account of his 
acquittal/exoneration on a criminal charge arising out of the same 
impugned transaction; these two are entirely different jurisdictions with 
different standards of proof as well as procedures; criminal prosecution 
requires strict proof through a narrowly jacketed procedure and, thus, 
State’s failure on criminal plane does not provide shield of double jeopardy 
to a delinquent officer. We would otherwise not comment upon the 
outcome of proceedings before the Anti Corruption Department as the 
matter is not before us nor the petitioners have picked up the courage to 
place details thereof before the authorities. Multiple transactions with 
grant package through privately held bank accounts inescapably 
established petitioners’ culpability as official channels were available in the 
form of departmental accounts to effect payments to the vendors. Similarly 
without approval or authority purchase from outlets through private 
arrangements cannot be viewed as an innocent omission, that too, by 
officers with considerable standing/experience. Petitioners’ emphatic 
stress on the principle of proportionately is entirely beside the mark. 
Public authority is a most sacred trust and a very high onus is cast upon a 
State functionary to uphold the highest degree of rectitude in financial 
matters; financial corruption or misappropriation of public money are 
wrongs of most repugnant depravity; once a public servant is found to 
have the capacity to betray the public trust, it would be most unwise as 
well as inexpedient to retain him on the job. Integrity of an individual 
cannot be quantified and, thus, in the circumstances of the present case, 
Civil Petition Nos.4185 of 2019, 4209 of 2019 & 4504 of 2019 
 
 
 5 
  
  
 
the principle of proportionality has no application. Similarly argument that 
enhancement of penalty in the de novo inquiry required additional material 
and show cause does not hold much water. The entire material was 
collected by the first inquiry officer and was well within the notice of the 
petitioners; they were confronted with the available material during 
personal hearings and it was after compliance with all the procedural 
formalities that they were recommended penalties, they sought review 
whereof, apparently for no valid reasons. As pointed out above, 
observations recorded by the second officer are not only self destructive, 
these had no material basis as well; it appears a treacherous attempt to 
provide the petitioners a safe exit, rightly blocked by the Secretary, 
therefore, restoration of original penalties in an ongoing process cannot be 
viewed as enhancement as it entailed no additional consequences other 
than proposed in the first place. Petitions fail. Leave declined.   
  
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
   
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
20th August, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/*   
