IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 441 OF 2021 
(Against the judgment dated 22.09.2020 
passed by the Peshawar High Court, 
Abbottabad Bench in Writ Petition No. 830-
A/2019) 
 
 
President National Bank of Pakistan and others 
 
…Appellant(s) 
Versus 
Waqas Ahmed Khan 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Rai Mohammad Nawaz Kharal, ASC 
Rafaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Nemo 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
16.01.2023 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this appeal by leave of the 
Court, the appellants have called in question the vires of the judgment dated 
22.09.2020 passed by the learned Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench 
whereby the Writ Petition filed by the respondent was allowed and the 
appellants were directed to allow the respondent to join his duty in 
pursuance of appointment order dated 24.06.2015.   
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that father of the 
respondent was Manager in the appellant National Bank of Pakistan and died 
while he was in service of the Bank. The respondent filed Writ Petition No. 
52-A/2013 before the Peshawar High Court for his appointment in the 
National Bank under son-quota. The said Writ Petition was allowed vide 
judgment dated 10.12.2013 and the appellants were directed to appoint the 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.441 OF 2021 
 
-: 2 :-
respondent on regular basis on any post commensurate to his qualification. 
This judgment was also upheld by this Court vide order dated 23.02.2015 
passed in Civil Petition No. 235/2014. Thereafter, the appellant Bank issued 
appointment letter dated 24.06.2015 and directed the respondent to join the 
duty as Cashier within a period of 30 days. However, on coming to know that 
the respondent was involved in a criminal case registered vide FIR No. 
1172/2013 dated 23.11.2013 under Section 302 PPC at Police Station 
Hawalian, District Abbottabad for committing murder of his wife, he was not 
allowed to join the duty. Later on, the respondent was acquitted by the 
learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 02.05.2019 while exercising the 
powers under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. After his acquittal, he filed Writ Petition 
No. 830-A/2019 before the Peshawar High Court with a prayer that the 
appellants may be directed to take charge from him as per appointment 
order dated 24.06.2015. The learned High Court vide impugned order dated 
22.09.2020 accepted the Writ Petition filed by the respondent and directed 
the appellants to allow the respondent to join his duty in pursuance of the 
appointment order dated 24.06.2015. Being aggrieved by the impugned 
order, the appellants filed Civil Petition No. 3527/2020 before this Court 
wherein leave was granted on 28.04.2021 and the present appeal has arisen 
thereafter.  
3. 
 
At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants 
contended that at the time when the respondent was offered job in the 
appellant Bank, he was involved in a criminal case but he concealed this fact. 
Contends that the respondent had not approached the learned High Court 
with clean hands and had misstated the facts, therefore, he could not have 
been given the relief sought for. Contends that appointment of the 
respondent under the son quota is a policy matter, as such, the writ petition 
was not maintainable before the High Court especially keeping in view the 
criminal background of the respondent. Lastly contends that acquittal under 
Section 265-K Cr.P.C. is not an acquittal stricto sensu, as such, the impugned 
judgment is based on wrong presumption of law, therefore, the same may be 
set at naught.  
CIVIL APPEAL NO.441 OF 2021 
 
-: 3 :-
4. 
 
Although notice has been served on the respondent and he is 
represented by a counsel yet neither the respondent nor his counsel is in 
attendance. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to proceed with the 
matter on merits.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have 
perused the record with his able assistance.  
 
 
There is no denial to this fact that doctrine of legitimate 
expectation connotes that a person may have a reasonable expectation of 
being treated in a certain way by administrative authorities owing to some 
uniform practice or an explicit promise made by the concerned authority. The 
legitimate expectation ascends in consequence of a promise, assurance, 
practice or policy made, adopted or announced by or on behalf of 
government of a public authority. When such a legitimate expectation is 
obliterated, it affords locus standi to challenge the administrative action 
before the court of law. However, it is for the Court to decide as to whether 
the expectation is legitimate or not. Said doctrine is applied as a tool to 
watch over the action of administrative authorities and in essence imposes 
on all authorities to act fair and square in all matters encompassing 
legitimate expectation. Reliance is placed on Uzma Manzoor Vs. Vice 
Chancellor Khushal Khan Khattak University, Karak (2022 SCMR 694). In the 
present case, the respondent in the earlier round of litigation had 
approached the learned High Court with a view to appoint him under the son 
quota. However, he concealed the factum of his being involved in a criminal 
case. No doubt, the Constitutional courts being guardians of the Constitution 
have the power to judicially review the administrative/executive actions and 
the conduct of the public authorities but the same shall be on the touchstone 
of fairness, reasonableness and proportionality. We are not oblivious of the 
fact that although the respondent was involved in a criminal case of murder 
of his wife and was acquitted subsequently pursuant to proceedings carried 
out under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. However, it is settled law that even if the 
allegations leveled in the FIR are admitted to be false, even then without 
recording of evidence, it cannot be said that there was no probability of 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.441 OF 2021 
 
-: 4 :-
conviction of the accused. In order to ascertain the genuineness of the 
allegations, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the prosecution to lead 
evidence. Even otherwise, this Court in Model Customs Collectorate, 
islamabd Vs. Aamir Mumtaz Qureshi (2022 SCMR 1861) and State Vs. Raja 
Abdul Rehman (2005 SCMR 1544) has categorically held that in appellate or 
revisional proceedings, the same sanctity cannot be accorded to acquittal at 
intermediately stage such as under Section 249-A or 265-K Cr.P.C. as 
available for those recorded and based on full-fledged trial after recording of 
evidence. The respondent was offered the job of cashier in the Bank but 
when the Bank came to know that he has a criminal background, the Bank 
did not allow him to join the duty. The post of cashier is considered to be 
very important in a Bank. It is the cashier who collects and disburses cash. It 
is for this reason that every Bank wants their cashier to be of such a person, 
that no one can point a finger on his conduct. We are, therefore, of the view 
that while not allowing the respondent to join the duty, the Bank was well 
within its domain and acted naturally. The learned High Court ought to have 
taken into consideration the above fact but it failed to do so.  
6. 
 
For what has been discussed above, this appeal is allowed, the 
impugned judgment of the learned Peshawar High Court is set aside. The 
above are the detailed reasons of our short order of even date.  
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
16th of January, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram