IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, CJ 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 648 OF 2021 
 (On appeal against the judgment dated 
14.05.2019 passed by the Punjab Service 
Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 2887/2017) 
 
 
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Lahore etc 
 
…Appellants 
 
VERSUS 
 
Sarfraz Ahmed 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellants: 
Mr. Zafar Hussain Ahmed, Addl. A.G 
Mr. H. Majid, DSP 
 
 
For the Respondent: 
Mr. Umer Farooq, ASC 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
04.10.2021 
… 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this appeal 
by leave of the Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the appellants have called in 
question the judgment dated 14.05.2019 passed by the Punjab 
Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the service appeal filed by the 
respondent against his dismissal from service was allowed.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that the 
respondent while serving as a constable in Police Station Lower 
Mall, Lahore was proceeded against departmentally for wilful 
absence from duty from 21.12.2016 to 16.02.2017 and having 
been found involved in three criminal cases. It was also alleged 
that he had close relations with gangs of criminals, which were 
involved in cases of robbery, dacoity, kidnapping for ransom, theft 
etc. The respondent was issued show cause notice on 19.12.2016, 
which 
was 
duly 
replied 
by 
him. 
Thereafter, 
a 
regular 
Civil Appeal No. 648/2021 
2
departmental inquiry was conducted wherein the allegations 
leveled against the respondent were found correct. On the basis of 
such inquiry report, the respondent was awarded major penalty of 
dismissal from service by the competent authority vide order 
dated 
16.02.2017. 
Being 
aggrieved, 
the 
respondent 
filed 
departmental appeal but the same was rejected vide order dated 
22.07.2017. He then filed service appeal before the Punjab Service 
Tribunal, Lahore, which has been allowed vide impugned 
judgment. Hence, this appeal with leave of the Court.  
3. 
 
Learned Additional Advocate General argued that it 
was established on record that the respondent had close relations 
with gangsters, who are involved in many cases of kidnapping for 
ransom, extortion of money, dacoity and illicit weapons etc, 
therefore, keeping in view the fact that he was a member of the 
disciplined force, he does not deserve any leniency by this Court 
as this would cause adverse affect on other members of the force; 
that while awarding  the penalty of dismissal from service, all the 
legal requirements were duly followed i.e. a regular inquiry was 
conducted and the respondent was given personal hearing by the 
competent authority but the learned Service Tribunal did not take 
this aspect into consideration and passed the impugned judgment 
in a slipshod manner.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent 
has defended the impugned judgment. He contended that the 
period of wilful absence was condoned by the authority by 
treating the same as leave without pay. He added that another 
allegation against the respondent in the show cause notice was 
that he has been found involved in three FIRs bearing number 
630/2016, 699/2016 & 702/2016 but in all of the three, the 
respondent has been acquitted of the charge, therefore, the 
learned Service Tribunal has rightly reinstated him into service.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at 
some length and have perused the record with their able 
assistance.  
 
 
The learned Service Tribunal allowed the appeal filed 
by the respondent mainly on two grounds i.e. (i) that the 
respondent has been acquitted of the charge by the courts of 
competent jurisdiction in the three criminal cases registered vide 
Civil Appeal No. 648/2021 
3
FIR Nos. 630/2016 dated 19.11.2016 under Section 387/506 
PPC, 699/2016 dated 29.12.2016 under Sections 399/402 PPC 
and 702/2016 dated 29.12.2016 under Sections 13/20/65 of the 
Arms Ordinance, and (ii) the period of absence was condoned by 
the authority by treating the same as leave without pay. However, 
we have found that the department had conducted a regular 
inquiry in which it was found that the respondent has close 
relations with criminals operating in Lahore city against whom as 
many as 37 FIRs have been registered for the offences of robbery, 
kidnapping for ransom, dacoity etc. The detail of those FIRs has 
been duly mentioned in the dismissal order. When we confronted 
learned counsel for the respondent with this aspect of the matter, 
he could not give any plausible explanation. The learned Tribunal 
did not even discuss this aspect of the matter in the impugned 
judgment. The department has followed all the legal formalities 
while awarding penalty of dismissal to the respondent and he 
was given full opportunity to defend himself. So far as the 
condonation of the period of absence by allowing it without pay is 
concerned, it is admitted position that the respondent remained 
absent for a long period of about 55 days without taking prior 
leave or without informing his higher ups. The respondent being a 
member of the highly disciplined force was required to maintain 
strict discipline having regard to nature of duties enjoined to these 
forces and such an attitude cannot be excused and tolerated. In 
WAPDA Vs. Shan Elahi (1998 SCMR 1890), this Court has 
candidly held that employer/competent authority in case of 
unauthorized absence of employee from duty will be entitled to 
dismiss, remove or terminate the services of the employee 
concerned with effect from the date of unauthorized absence of 
the employee and the penalty of dismissal from service could be 
maintained even though the absence has been treated as leave 
without pay. In the case of NAB Vs. Muhammad Shafique (2020 
SCMR 425), the respondent was awarded major penalty of 
compulsory retirement for his unauthorized absence of 66 days. 
The competent authority in the order of imposing major penalty 
had also treated the period of absence as Extraordinary 
Leave/Leave without pay. The respondent went to the High Court 
by pleading that since the office order through which major 
Civil Appeal No. 648/2021 
4
penalty of compulsory retirement from service was imposed also 
directs 
the 
treatment 
of 
his 
unauthorized 
absence 
as 
extraordinary leave without pay, therefore, the penalty could not 
be sustained and ultimately succeeded in getting the relief. 
However, in appeal filed by the department against the impugned 
judgment of the High Court, this Court while setting aside the 
impugned judgment held that 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, it was necessary to give finding as to how such 
absence is to be treated but where an employee is dismissed from 
service he may not be entitled to any dues, therefore, there could 
hardly be any reason to provide for the treatment of his 
unauthorized absence as leave without pay. The Court further held 
that “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 breath imposed major penalty of dismissal or 
compulsory retirement. The benefit of such naive 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 
coexist 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.” 
6. 
 
In WAPDA Vs. Shan Elahi supra case, it was also held 
that the Service Tribunal is competent to confirm, set aside, vary 
or modify the punishment but such power is to be exercised not 
arbitrarily or capriciously or on the basis of wrong premises or 
misconception of law. Even otherwise, learned Law Officer has 
disputed the fact of condoning the absence period. In this view of 
the matter, we are constrained to observe that the impugned 
judgment passed by the learned Service Tribunal suffers from 
misreading and non-reading of the evidence and the same cannot 
sustain in the eyes of law.  
Civil Appeal No. 648/2021 
5
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, this appeal is 
allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside.  
 
 
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Lahore, the 
4th of October, 2021 
Approved For Reporting  
Khurram