IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, HCJ 
Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan 
Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah 
 
 
Civil Appeal No.1618/2019. 
(Against the order dated 18.7.2017 passed by the 
Islamabad High Court in WP No.3793/2016) 
 
 
NAB through its Chairman 
  
 
… Appellant(s)  
Versus 
 
Muhammad Shafique 
  
 
… Respondent (s) 
 
For the Appellant (s) 
: 
Mr. Imran ul Haq Khan, DPG NAB 
 
 
 
For the Respondent(s) 
: 
Raja Muhammad Anwar Khan Abbasi, ASC 
Mr. Ahmed Nawaz Ch. AOR 
 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 
06.01.2020 
 
Judgment 
 
Sajjad Ali Shah, J. The respondent in the year 1990 was 
appointed as Upper Division Clerk in the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and 
Life Stock, Islamabad and thereafter was placed in surplus pool. The 
respondent ultimately on 18.12.2002 was absorbed in the appellant-NAB 
as UDC. He absented himself from duty for a continuous period of 66 days 
from 23.11.2009 giving rise to disciplinary proceedings which resulted in 
his compulsory retirement. The respondent against such major penalty 
invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court by pleading 
inter alia that since the office order dated 12.3.2010 through which major 
penalty of compulsory retirement from service was imposed also directs the 
treatment of his un-authorized absence from duty of 66 days from 
23.11.2009 to 27.1.2010 as extraordinary leave (EOL) without pay, 
therefore, the major penalty of compulsory retirement could not be 
sustained. The High Court, through the impugned judgment, while 
accepting such plea allowed the petition by setting aside the major penalty 
CA 1618 of 2019  
2
of compulsory and directed the reinstatement of the respondent with all 
back benefits.  
2. 
 
Leave was granted by this Court vide order dated 30.9.2019 to 
examine as to whether in the circumstances, penalty of compulsory 
retirement could not be imposed upon the respondent.  
3. 
 
The learned Deputy Prosecutor General NAB contends that 
during 7 years of service with the appellant, the respondent remained 
absent for a total period of 1627 days and in this respect various warning 
letters were issued to him but he did not improve his behaviour rather once 
again on 23.11.2009 absented himself which absence continued for 66 
days. Show cause notice in the meanwhile was accordingly issued on 
18.12.2009. It was responded by the respondent on 29.12.2009 requesting 
the adjustment of his casual leave against his absence. However, the 
response submitted by the respondent did not find favour with the 
competent authority, consequently, vide order dated 12.3.2010 the 
competent authority while imposing major penalty directed the compulsory 
retirement of the respondent. So far as the conversion of the un-authorized 
absence from duty as extraordinary leave, it was submitted that this was 
only for the purpose of settlement of respondent’s dues. In the 
circumstances, it was submitted that the impugned judgment lacks legal 
sanctity and could not be sustained.   
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent 
contended that rule 9(3) of the Revised Leave Rules, 1980 empowers the 
competent authority to grant extraordinary leave retrospectively in lieu of 
absence from leave and since the competent authority has exercised such 
discretion by treating the respondent’s un-authorized absence of 66 days as 
extraordinary leave, therefore, there was no occasion to impose major 
penalty of compulsory retirement. Counsel, in support of his contention, 
placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the case titled Lahore 
Development Authority vs. Muhammad Nadeem Kachloo (2006 SCMR 434), 
CA 1618 of 2019  
3
Director General Intelligence Bureau vs. Muhammad Javed (2012 SCMR 165) 
and Muhammad Sharif Abbasi vs. Member, Water, WAPDA Lahore (2013 
SCMR 903). 
5. 
 
We have heard the contentions of learned counsel for both the 
parties and have perused the record as well as the case law cited at bar. 
6. 
 
It appears from the record that the respondent not only 
absented himself from duty but during his absence, he received a show 
cause notice, responded it and still continued with his absence. The show 
cause notice seeking explanation of the respondent for his un-authorized 
absence was issued on 18.12.2009 containing the following charge:- 
“You are absent from duty since 23rd November, 2009 
without any intimation/prior approval of your office 
incharge as reported by Ops Division. You were served an 
explanation on 1st December, 2009 with the direction to 
explain your position within three days followed by 2 x 
reminders dated 10th and 14th December, 2009, but you did 
not reply so far. You were also directed to report for duty 
immediately, but you are still absent from duty”. 
Therefore, you Mr. Muhammad Shafique, UDC, NAB (HQ), 
Islamabad are called upon to show cause within period of 
10 (Ten days) from the date of receipt of this notice as to 
why one of the penalties as defined in para 11.03(1) of 
NAB’s TCS should not be imposed upon you on account of 
misconduct”.      
 
7. 
 
The respondent on 29.12.2009, almost within the prescribed 
period, responded to the show cause notice, the relevant portion of the said 
response, which is very relevant to resolve the controversy, is reproduced as 
follows:- 
“In the mean time I had been suffering from severe back-ach 
and getting some formal treatment but in vain and the pain 
was increasing day by day. It is worth of mention here that 
I had been attending the office during those days. So I 
decided to be treated from some specialist and I did so. In 
the result of detailed check up by the doctor I was advised 
complete bed-rest (Doctor’s advice will be submitted in 
couple of days) and because of that I submitted casual 
leave applications one after another, w.e.f. 1st December 
2009 onward. It is humbly requested to treat my absent 
days as leave. I shall be highly obliged”.  
 
8. 
 
The response submitted by the respondent did not find favour 
with the competent authority which vide office order dated 12.3.2010 
CA 1618 of 2019  
4
directed the respondent’s compulsory retirement by imposing one of the 
major penalties. Since this office order also directed the treatment of 
respondent’s un-authorized absence as extraordinary leave without pay 
and the entire controversy, as projected before us, revolves around the 
treatment of respondent’s such un-authorized absence from duty as 
extraordinary leave, therefore, it would be proper to reproduce the office 
order dated 12.3.2010 imposing major penalty of compulsory retirement 
which reads as under:-  
“In pursuance of Show Cause Notice issued vide this 
Bureau’s letter of even number dated 18th December, 2009 
the competent authority i.e. Director General HR & Fin has 
imposed a major penalty i.e. ‘compulsory retirement from 
service’ upon Mr. Muhammad Shafique, UDC, NAB, 
Islamabad under section 11.03(1)(b)(ii) of NAB’s TCS with 
immediate effect.  
The un–authorized absence from duty for a period of 66 
days from 23rd November, 2009 to 27th January, 2010 is 
hereby treated as EOL (without pay).”  
 
9. 
 
Perusal of this office order would reflect that the competent 
authority in the first paragraph of office order has expressed its mind 
explicitly on the unauthorized absence of the respondent by imposing the 
major penalty of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect. 
So far as the second portion of the office order is concerned, since the 
penalty imposed by the competent authority was of compulsory retirement 
which follows the payment of salaries and other dues till the date of 
imposing such penalty, therefore, in our opinion, it was necessary to give 
finding as to how such absence is to be treated, therefore, to say that since 
the un-authorized absence of the respondent was treated as extraordinary 
leave in term of rule 9(3) of the Revised Leave Rules, 1980 does not appeal 
to our mind. If this would have been the case then the first paragraph of the 
office order would be redundant, on the contrary it categorically provides for 
the consequences of the un-authorized absence.  
10. 
 
No doubt sub-Rule 3 of Rule 9 of “The Revised Leave Rules, 
1980” empowers the authorized officer to treat the un-authorized absence 
CA 1618 of 2019  
5
of an employee as extraordinary leave without pay but such treatment is 
not to be automatically allowed in every case. In our opinion, such powers 
are to be exercised in very genuine cases where the authorized officer finds 
that imposing of major penalty on account of unauthorized absence of an 
employee would be too harsh or is not warranted under the circumstances. 
However, where the authorized officer after due application of mind upon 
examining/adjudging the misconduct has imposed one of the major 
penalties and thereafter keeping in mind that the gap between the un-
authorized absence of the employee and the imposition of major penalty is 
to be provided with some kind of treatment provides for accordingly, then 
such treatment may it not be necessary would undo the major penalty.   
11. 
 
So far as the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the 
respondent is concerned, in the cases of Lahore Development Authority vs. 
Muhammad Nadeem Kachloo and Director General Intelligence Bureau vs. 
Muhammad Javed (supra), the competent authority after awarding major 
penalty of dismissal from service had directed the petitioner’s un-authorized 
absence as leave without pay. The cases can be differentiated as after 
imposing the penalty of dismissal from service, an employee may not be 
found entitled to any dues, therefore, there could hardly be any reason to 
provide for the treatment of their un-authorized absence as leave without 
pay. Beside in our view this was not a good interpretation of the office order 
imposing major penalty for the simple reason that the subsequent portion of 
the office order whereby the treatment of the un-authorized leave was 
provided as extraordinary leave without pay, at the most could be 
superfluous and redundant but could not be treated to nullify the major 
penalty which of course is imposed after adjudging the conduct of an 
employee. In case where the competent authority wanted to condone the 
absence of an employee by directing its treatment as one kind of leave, then 
the competent authority would have shown its intention by providing 
reasons for condoning such absence or at least would not have in the same 
CA 1618 of 2019  
6
breath imposed major penalty of dismissal or compulsory retirement. The 
benefit of such naïve drafting cannot be given to an employee who otherwise 
by his conduct deserved one of the major penalties. Additionally, it is not 
disputed that the conversion of unauthorized absence, as EOL without pay 
is not a penalty/punishment so that one can say that such treat cannot co-
exist with the major penalty/minor penalties. It is very obvious that if a man 
has absented himself from work without the permission of his employer, he 
of course is not entitled as of a right for payment of salary for such period.  
12. 
 
So far as the case of Muhammad Sharif Abbasi vs. Member, 
Water, WAPDA Lahore (supra) is concerned, in that case on account of un-
authorized absence, after awarding major penalty of compulsory retirement 
the un-authorized absence was treated as EOL without pay. However, in the 
said case the Court’s opinion was mainly swayed on account of the fact that 
the petitioner in that case was an employee of the WAPDA and admittedly 
was hospitalized in WAPDA’s own hospital, therefore, the major penalty of 
compulsory retirement was not found sustainable.  
13. 
 
These are the reasons of our short order of even date which 
was in the following terms:- 
“We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and 
have also gone through the record of the case. For reasons 
to be recorded, this appeal is allowed and the impugned 
judgment passed by the High Court dated 18.7.2017 is set 
aside 
resulting 
in 
dismissing 
of 
Writ 
Petition 
No. 
3793/2016, filed by the respondent against the petitioner”. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Islamabad, the 
6th January, 2020 
A. Rehman 
 
Judge 
 
 
Not Approved for Reporting.