IN THE SUPREME CO-URT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Present: 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk, HCJ 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Amir Hani Muslim 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry 
 
Civil Appeals No.1122, 1123, 1107 of 2013  
& 173 and 174 of 2015. 
(On appeal from judgment dated 9.5.2013 of the 
Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, passed in 
W.Ps.No.2987,  2764 of 2011 & 818-P/2012). And 
against judgment dated 10.9.2014 of the Peshawar 
High 
Court, 
Abbottabad 
Bench, 
passed 
in 
W.Ps.No.3219 & 475-P of 2014). 
 
The Commandant, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Constabulary, 
Headquarters Peshawar and another.  
 
 
…Appellants. 
(in all Appeals) 
VS 
 
Muhammad Nasir and others. (in C.A.No.1122/2013). 
 
 
 
 
Sarad Khan and others (in C.A.No.1123/2013). 
  
Muhammad Arif and others (in C.A.No.1107/2013). 
 
Najeebullah and others (in C.A.No.173/2015). 
 
Zakirullah and another (in C.A.No.174 of 2015) 
…Respondents. 
For the Appellants: 
 
Ms. Shireen Imran, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, AOR. 
 
 
 
 
 
(in C.As.No.1122, 1123 and 1107 of 2013). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mian Shafaqat Jan, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M.S. Khattak, AOR. 
 
 
 
 
 
(in C.As.No.173 & 174/2015). 
 
For the respondents: 
 
Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Sr.ASC. 
1-40 in C.A.No.1122/2013) 
1-34 in C.A.No.1123/2013) 
 
1-18, 20-25, 27, 28, 30, 31 
Mr. Abdul Latif Afridi, ASC. 
33, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43-51, 
53-65 in C.A.No.173/2015 
and for Respondent No.1 in  
C.A.No.174/2015). 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
31.3.2015. 
C.As.No.1122/13 etc. 
2 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J. – The relevant facts for the 
purpose of disposal of these Appeals are that the Appellants were posted in 
different Platoons of Frontier Constabulary which were deployed in different 
areas of F.R Peshawar and F.R Kohat. They were dismissed from service on 
the allegations of insubordination and cowardice. The Respondents filed 
Appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which were 
allowed, by various judgments passed on different dates and they were 
reinstated in service with direction to the Appellants to hold de novo 
inquiries against them and conclude the same within four months, providing 
them full opportunity of hearing.   
 
2. 
 
After receipt of the judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal, 
the Appellants without formally reinstating the Respondents, conducted de 
novo inquiry in the light of directions of the Tribunal and dismissed all the 
Respondents from service. The record shows that a second de novo inquiry 
upon the direction of the Tribunal was conducted against some of the 
Respondents, but they too were dismissed. The record further reveals that 
even 5th de novo inquiry was conducted against some of the Respondents, 
who were dismissed after such inquiries.  
 
3. 
 
Feeling aggrieved, this time the Respondents approached the 
High Court, pleading therein that the orders of dismissal from service were 
illegal and passed without affording them opportunity of hearing. The 
learned High Court allowed all the Writ Petitions holding as under:- 
“In case in hand, no doubt serious allegation were levelled 
against the Petitioners but the standard of proof as well as 
C.As.No.1122/13 etc. 
3 
the procedure adopted by the respondents, which is 
otherwise too noticeable, from the comments filed by 
respondents 
before 
this 
Court, 
without 
proper 
documentation and proper and elaborate answer to the 
objections raised by the petitioners in their writ petitions 
give no other reference but to hold that dismissal orders 
resulted into miscarriage of justice. The remand of these 
writ petitions would serve no good purpose too as 
respondents have already conducted a number of inquiries 
against the petitioners and another de novo inquiries would 
do nothing except to increase more agonies while 
petitioners have already suffered for more than four years 
which was a sufficient punishment for any lapses on their 
part (if any). 
30. 
This while allowing these writ petitions, we set 
aside the impugned orders of dismissal of the petitioners 
from their services and order their re-instatement into 
service from the date when they were dismissed with all 
consequential benefit of the posts from the said date except 
the salary as there is no proof that petitioners remained 
jobless for the whole duration of their dismissal.   
 
4. 
 
The Appellants challenged the judgments of the learned High 
Court before this Court and leave was granted in these appeals, inter alia, to 
consider whether the Respondents are Civil Servants. Hence these Appeals.  
 
5. 
 
The learned Counsel for the Appellants has contended that the 
Respondents are Civil Servants and the jurisdiction of High Court was 
barred under Article 212 of the Constitution. He submitted that once the 
Respondents had obtained relief from the Federal Service Tribunal, they 
could not have approached the High Court for the same relief. He next 
contended that the findings of the High Court were erroneous on the point 
that the Appellants had failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 18 of 
the North West Frontier Constabulary Rules, 1958. In support of his 
C.As.No.1122/13 etc. 
4 
submissions, he has relied upon the case of I.G Frontier Corps and others vs 
Ghulam Hussain (2004 SCMR 1397).  
 
6. 
 
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondents 
have contended that the Respondents are not Civil Servants and their terms 
and conditions of service are regulated by the North-West Frontier 
Constabulary Act, 1915, and the Rules framed there-under. They contended 
that the learned High Court did have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the 
matters relating to terms and conditions of service of the Respondent. They 
next contended that the Appellants had recorded findings in violation of the 
procedure prescribed under Rule 18 of the North West Frontier Constabulary 
Rules of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958), therefore, the 
learned High Court was justified in ordering their reinstatement.  
 
7. 
 
The Respondents’ Counsel next contended that the Appeals are 
barred by time and should have been dismissed on the point of limitation, as 
the grounds taken for condonation of delay are not plausible.  
 
8. 
 
We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and 
have perused the record. The Appellants are not Civil Servants as their terms 
and conditions of service are regulated by the provisions of the North West 
Frontier Constabulary Rules of 1958. The case law cited by the learned 
Counsel for the Appellants is not relevant after the judgment of this Court in 
the case of Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam and others vs. Federation of 
Pakistan (PLD 2006 SC 602), where this Court has held that the status of a 
Civil Servant cannot be conferred on an employee of the organization by a 
deeming clause which has its own statutory service Rules. The terms and 
C.As.No.1122/13 etc. 
5 
conditions of service of the Respondents are regulated by the Act of 1915 
which authorizes the Appellants to frame Rules. The Rules were framed in 
1958 and are duly notified which regulates the terms and conditions of 
service of the Respondents. The plea of the Appellants that the Respondents 
are Civil Servants is without force in view of the judgment in the case of 
Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam and others (supra) 
 
9. 
 
The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that 
proper procedure was followed while dismissing the Respondents from 
service, we have examined the procedure provided in Rule 18 (ibid) and the 
material brought on record by the parties. The orders which were impugned 
before the learned High Court are indicative of the fact that procedure as 
defined in Rule 18 of the Rules of 1958 was not followed. Even the learned 
High Court has observed in the impugned judgment that de novo inquiries 
were conducted by the Appellants without following the procedure provided 
in Rule 18 of the Rules of 1958. Once the learned High Court has held that 
the procedure prescribed in Rule 18 (ibid) has not been followed while 
dismissing the Respondents from service, it should have remanded the 
matter to the department after reinstating the Respondents in service for de 
novo inquiry.    
 
10. 
 
We, therefore, while partly allowing these Appeals remand the 
matters to the departmental Authority of the Appellants to hold de novo 
inquiry after reinstating the Respondents in service, by strictly following the 
procedure provided in Rule 18 of the Rules of 1958 and pass appropriate 
orders within four months from the date of communication of this judgment.  
C.As.No.1122/13 etc. 
6 
11. 
 
Since the points raised in the Appeals are of public importance, 
therefore, the delay in filing the Appeals is condoned on the grounds taken 
in the Applications for condonation of delay. The above are the reasons for 
our short order of even date which reads as under:- 
 “For reasons to be recorded later, these appeals are 
partially allowed and the impugned judgments of the High 
Court are set aside to the extent of setting aside the order 
of dismissal of the respondents by the Commandant 
Frontier Constabulary. However, since the procedure laid 
down in Rule 18 of the NWFP Frontier Constabulary 
Rules, 1958, had not been followed during the inquiry 
conducted against the respondents, a de novo inquiry 
according to the said Rule may be conducted against the 
respondents. In order to hold the inquiry the respondents 
have to be reinstated. Since three inquiries have already 
been held, the fresh inquiry shall be concluded within a 
period of four months.” 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
Islamabad the, 
25th March 2015. 
Approved for Reporting. 
Sohail/**