IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED  
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 935 OF 2015 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 24.03.2015 
passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in 
Appeal No. 745(P)CS-2013) 
 
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and 
another 
… Petitioners 
VERSUS 
 
Bashir Ahmed, SBA in MES, Ministry of Defence, GE(Army), Nowshera 
… Respondent 
 
For the Petitioners: 
Syed 
Nayyab 
Hassan 
Gardezi, 
Assistant 
Attorney General  
 
Qari Abdul Rasheed, AOR (Absent) 
 
For the Respondent: 
Mr. Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ahmed Nawaz Ch, AOR 
 
 
Date of Hearing:  
18.04.2017 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J.- The respondent was appointed as SBA 
in MES, Ministry of Defence in the year 1990. On 20.06.2010 he was 
nominated as an accused in a murder case registered vide FIR No. 
335/2010 under Sections 302/34 PPC at Police Station Azakhel, 
District Nowshera. He remained absent without any authorization 
from the day the FIR was registered against him. Between 27.06.2010 
to 01.09.2010, he was issued five letters calling upon him to resume 
duty but he failed to do so. On account of his absence, disciplinary 
proceedings were initiated against him on 26.10.2010. He was then 
served with show cause notice on 25.04.2011, to which he failed to 
respond. Ultimately, major penalty of compulsory retirement was 
recommended on 15.09.2011. The respondent was then given an 
opportunity of personal hearing but he failed to appear, hence the 
Civil Petition No. 935/2015 
2
Authorized Officer imposed major penalty vide order dated 31.01.2012 
on account of his continuous absence from duty. The respondent 
belatedly filed departmental appeal on 03.07.2012 which was 
considered to be barred by time. The respondent then filed appeal 
before the Service Tribunal on the ground that he was not given the 
opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal while disposing of the appeal vide 
order dated 02.07.2013 directed the petitioner to hear the 
respondent’s departmental appeal afresh and decide within 30 days. 
After hearing the respondent, the departmental appeal was rejected on 
11.10.2013, whereafter he again preferred appeal before the Service 
Tribunal on 08.11.2013. Before the Tribunal, it was admitted by 
respondent’s Advocate that after the registration, the respondent went 
underground as he could not live a normal life on account of his 
involvement in a criminal case and thus remained absent from duty. 
With regard to the disciplinary proceedings, the Service Tribunal held 
that on account of murder charges and the enmity with the 
complainant party, his absence was justified. The Service Tribunal 
thus converted the major penalty of compulsory retirement into minor 
penalty of withholding of three increments and reinstated him back in 
service. Against such decision, present petition for leave to appeal has 
been preferred. Notice was issued to the respondent.  
 
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it is an 
admitted position that the respondent absented himself from 
20.06.2010 onwards without seeking leave of absence from the 
department. The letters calling upon him to resume duty as well as 
show cause notice delivered at his known address were also not 
responded to, hence, the department was left with no other option but 
Civil Petition No. 935/2015 
3
to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Learned counsel further submitted 
that the Authorized Officer in fact showed leniency by not dismissing 
the respondent from service and only imposed a penalty of compulsory 
retirement, which would still entitle him to receive pensionary benefits 
for the term that he served from 1990 until he was compulsorily 
retired on 31.01.2012.  
 
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, 
contended that the respondent was involved in a murder case on 
20.06.2010 and was finally acquitted on 20.09.2012, hence, his 
absence was not willful, therefore, imposition of major penalty was too 
harsh. He submitted that at best a minor penalty could have been 
imposed and the Service Tribunal after taking into consideration all 
this rightly converted major penalty into minor penalty. In support of 
his contention he relied upon the case of Central Board of Revenue Vs. 
Shafiq Muhammad (2008 SCMR 1666). He also submitted that even 
otherwise no case of public importance as envisaged under Article 
212(3) of the Constitution is made out and this petition may be 
dismissed on this score alone. 
 
4. 
 
It has come on the record that during the period of 
absence, no attempt was made on behalf of the respondent to apply for 
leave. The respondent’s counsel himself stated before the Tribunal that 
the reason for his absence was that he went underground being 
involved in a murder case and it was only on the basis of a 
compromise with the victim’s relatives that he was acquitted in 
September, 2012. Though the criminal case came to an end in 
September, 2012 and he was acquitted on account of compromise 
Civil Petition No. 935/2015 
4
reached with the complainant party, nevertheless before reaching the 
compromise, he was not in custody but remained an absconder and 
only surrendered before the law after the compromise was reached 
with the victim’s family members. To seek condonation of absence 
during his absconsion would amount to putting premium on such act. 
If this is made a ground for condonation of absence, then in every case 
where the civil servant is involved in a criminal case and absconds, his 
absence from duty would have to be condoned. The act of absconsion 
or being a fugitive from law cannot be regarded as a reasonable ground 
to explain absence. Even where a person is innocent, absconsion 
amounts to showing mistrust in the judicial system. Learned counsel 
for the respondent was asked to show as to whether in any case, this 
Court has condoned the absconsion and the departmental action was 
set aside, he was unable to satisfy this Court on this point. In the 
circumstances, the case relied upon by the respondent’s counsel is of 
no help to the case of the respondent as it has no relevance in the 
facts and circumstances of this case.  
 
5. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we convert this 
petition into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned judgment and 
restore the departmental action of imposition of major penalty of 
compulsory retirement.  
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
18th of April, 2017 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram