SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Guizar Ahmed, CJ
Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Ma.zhar
2)
'CIVIL APPEAL NO.835 OF 2021
[Against the judgment dated 14.11.2017, passed by the Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar in Appeal No.34 of 2014]
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
through 
Secretary 
Health, 
Civil
Secretariat, Peshawar and others. . . .Appellant(s)
Versus
Dr. Liaqat Ali and others. 
Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s) 
Mian Shafaqat Jan, Additional
Advocate General, KP
Zia Ullah, Deputy Secretary, Health
Department, KP
For Respondent No.1 
Sh. Riazul Haque, ASC
Date of Hearing 06.01.2022
ORDER
GULZAR AHMED, CJ.- The Respondent No.1 (the
respondent) was allowed deputation to Saudi Arabia in
September, 2006 for two years, which was subsequently
extended upto 20.09.2010. The respondent, on expiry of this
extended period, again applied for further extension, which was
refused. The respondent did not report for duty. Consequently,
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and
ultimately vide order dated 17.03.2012, he was removed from
service. After filing of departmental appeal, the respondent filed
/ service appeal before the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service
Tribunal, Peshawar (the Tribunal). The Tribunal in the
impugned judgment dated 14.11.2017, noted as a fact that
L
'I
I
S 
I
CA.835 of 2021
before imposition of penalty of removal from service on the
respondent all codal formalities were observed, however,
considering 24 years' service to his credit, the Tribunal found
that the respondent is entitled to grant of retirement benefits
and imposition of penalty of removal from service is harsh. The
Tribunal proceeded to modify the penalty of removal from
service into that of compulsory retirement.
2.
Learned Additional Advocate General, KP contends
that the respondent did not report for duty at all and the show
cause notice issued to him was also not replied by him. The
enquiry was conducted in which too he did not participate. The
/ respondent by his own conduct has admitted of wilfully
remaining absent from duty and continued his employment in
Saudi Arabia despite the period allowed by the appellants stood
terminated on 20.09.2010,
3.
We note that imposition of penalty is in the domain
of the competent authority, for that, the competent authority is
fully empowered to impose such penalty upon its employee on
finding him guilty of commission of misconduct as it considers
appropriate and normally the Court will not interfere in such
exercise of power by the competent authority. The conversion of
penalty imposed by the competent authority will require a
strong justifiable reason beyond what is stated by the Tribunal
in the impugned judgment. The Court is not empowered to I
arbitrarily and whimsically find the penalty imposed by the
/ competent authority to be harsh merely, on the ground that the
-2
respondent has put in 24 years' of service and is entitled to
U
CA.835 of 2021
grant of retirement benefits. The quantum of punishment has to
be left with the competent authority and the Court cannot
without any strong reason interfere with the same. The
interference in the matter of punishment will be without
jurisdiction when strong reasons are not assigned to support
the same. The reference in this regard is made to the cases of
Government of the Pun jab through Chief Secretary vs.
Muhammad Arshad and 2 others (2020 SCMR 1962), Deputy
/ Postmaster General, Central Punjab Lahore and another vs.
Habib Ahmed (2021 SCMR 584), Director General Federal
Directorate and another vs. Tanveer Muhammad and another
(2021 SCMR 345) and Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services,
Faisalabad and others vs. Muhammad Zafarullah (2021 SCMR
400).
4. 
We, therefore, find that the Tribunal was not
/ justified in reducing the penalty imposed by the competent
authority of removal from service on the respondent into
compulsory retirement, as the same is not supportable in law.
Consequently, while allowing the appeal, the impugned
judgment to the extent of modifying the penalty of removal from
service into compulsory retirement is set aside and the penalty
of removal from service is restored.
 
I
-3
Bench-I
Islamabad
06.0 1.2022
 
Rabba APPROVED FOR REPORTING'
ni/*