— Difference between a contractual and regular employee — Scope — The differences between a contractual employee and a regular employee are material for both the employee and the employer and, inter alia, include (i) Duration of employment; a contractual employee is usually employed for a specific period or task, with a set end date. (ii) Benefits; contractual employees generally do not receive the same benefits or statutory protection as a regular employee. (iii) Scope of work; the contractual employee is engaged for a specific project or task. (iv) Flexibility; contractual employee often has more flexibility in terms of work hours and location. (v) Cost Considerations: a contractual employee can be less costly in the short term as it doesn’t require benefits and other long-term financial commitments; and (vi) Risk Management; hiring regular employees is often a long-term commitment, so organizations opt for contractual workers to manage risks associated with fluctuating market demands. [2025 SCLR 16 = 2025 SCMR 104 = 2024 SCP 308]

— Regularization of employees — Fair assessment — Scope — Any institution opting for regularization of its employees must be either mandated by law or must carry out regularization through a well-thought-out policy of the institution concerned laying down the criteria and the process for regularization; performance evaluation of the contractual employee must be assessed to determine if the employee meets the standards required for a regular position; there must be availability of positions that match the skills and experience of the contractual employee; the budgetary considerations and financial implication of a regular employee be weighed and considered — There must be a fair assessment of the employee’s qualifications, performance and merit, so as to ensure only competent and committed employees be granted permanent employment status. [2025 SCLR 16 = 2025 SCMR 104 = 2024 SCP 308]

— Regularization — Scope — Regularization of a contractual employee constitutes a fresh appointment into the stream of regular appointments in civil services. [2025 SCLR 16 = 2025 SCMR 104 = 2024 SCP 308]

— Show cause notice — Statement of allegations — Response and consideration — Scope — An employer, on any allegation of misconduct, can hold a departmental inquiry/proceedings against the delinquent and even on some concrete grounds or reasons may dispense with the enquiry while recording reasons to do so and communicating the reasons to the accused person — The foremost step that triggers the enquiry is the show cause notice and statement of allegations sent to the accused person to respond for further proceedings and consideration — The departmental proceedings may be initiated on the basis of allegations contained in the show cause notice and not on the allegations which were never part of the show cause notice — The purpose of a show cause notice is to solicit a response explaining, with reasonable cause, why a specific action on a particular act of misconduct should not be taken against the employee — By and large, it is a well-defined and well-structured process designed to provide the alleged defaulter with a fair chance to respond to the allegations raised against him and explain his position within a reasonable timeframe, ensuring that he is not taken by surprise upon the culmination of the proceedings or subjected to any adverse action based on allegations which were never presented to him or where he was not allowed any opportunity to respond and defend himself — Therefore, in all fairness, the departmental action on account of any misconduct should be confined to the allegations mentioned in the show cause notice/statement of allegations, and should not travel beyond its precinct because the person accused of misconduct is only liable to answer the allegations communicated to him in the show cause and have no supernatural knowledge to respond to the allegations not known to him — If this tendency or practice is appreciated and illegal departmental actions are reinforced or fortified by the Courts and Tribunal, then there will be a ludicrous state of affairs, and in a nutshell, the whole purpose of the provisions provided for disciplinary proceedings under the Civil Servants and Labour Laws will not only be redundant and superfluous, but will also be deemed to be a sham; a feigned and mala fide exercise of power to victimize and get rid of the employee, by hook or by crook, without the due process of law and without observing the universal norms of natural justice. [2025 SCLR 13 = 2025 SCMR 92 = 2024 SCP 385]

— Departmental proceedings — Standard of proof — Criminal Trial v. Departmental Inquiry — Scope — The benchmark of establishing innocence or guilt in the departmental proceedings initiated on account of some acts of misconduct under the relevant laws, meant for civil servants and workmen under Industrial Relations Laws, is not the same as required to be proved in a criminal trial — In departmental inquiries, the standard of proof is based on the balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence and not a strict proof beyond any reasonable doubt — Let us also discuss the genre of inquiries to distinguish its primary purposefulness — The primary objective of conducting a discreet inquiry is to gather information without alerting the alleged delinquent, allowing for an understanding of whether the allegations lodged in a complaint or report of misconduct establish a prima facie case for proceeding with disciplinary action — Obviously, while forming such opinion on the basis of information and data collected during the course of the discreet inquiry, the accused does not need to be involved in his defence — Likewise, a fact-finding enquiry is more or less the same — The purpose of it is also to investigate, establish facts, and compile a report for the management so that disciplinary proceedings may be initiated if the competent authority chooses to do so in accordance with law — The purpose of the fact-finding inquiry is not to declare the delinquent innocent or guilty, which is the function of the inquiry officer/inquiry committee, as the case may be — Whereas, a regular inquiry is triggered after issuing a show cause notice with a statement of allegations, and if the reply is not found suitable, then the inquiry officer is appointed and a regular inquiry is commenced (unless dispensed with for some reasons, in writing) in which it is obligatory for the inquiry officer to allow an evenhanded and fair opportunity to the accused to place his defense, and if any witness is examined against him then a fair opportunity should also be given to him to cross-examine the witnesses. [2025 SCLR 13 = 2025 SCMR 92 = 2024 SCP 385]

— Imposition of punishment — Disproportionate punishment — Reasonableness test — Judicial review — Scope — No doubt, the imposition of punishment is the dominion of the competent authority and the role of the Tribunal or Court is secondary unless the punishment imposed upon the delinquent employee is found to be unreasonable, disproportionate, or against the law — In order to appreciate the line of reasoning of awarding punishment vis-à-vis the act of misconduct, the Service Tribunal can consider the ground of proportionality and reasonableness of the quantum of punishment with proper application of mind — The acid test of judging unreasonableness of any departmental decision or action in the Civil Servant Laws and/or the Industrial Relations Laws is that the said decision or action is so unreasonable or irrational that no reasonable person could have arrived at it, whereas the same criteria to judge proportionality is that the punishments imposed on any delinquent is unequivocally out of proportion or illogical to the act of misconduct alleged against the employee — The proportionality test, in some jurisdictions, is also described as the “least injurious means” or “minimal impairment” test so as to safeguard fundamental rights of citizens and to ensure a fair balance between individual rights and public interest — Proportionality is more concerned with the aims and intention of the decision-maker and whether the decision-maker has achieved the correct balance or equilibrium — The Court, entrusted with the task of judicial review, has to examine whether the decision taken by the authority is proportionate i.e. well balanced and harmonious — To this extent, the Court may indulge in a merit review, and if the Court finds that the decision is proportionate, it seldom interferes with the decision taken, and if it finds that the decision is disproportionate i.e. if it feels that it is not well balanced or harmonious and does not stand to reason, it may tend to interfere. [2025 SCLR 13 = 2025 SCMR 92 = 2024 SCP 385]

— Dispensing with regular inquiry in disciplinary proceedings — Scope — It is imperative for the competent authority to first sift and pore over the allegations set out in the show cause notice, applying a judicious approach, to reach a just and proper conclusion as to whether the allegations require regular inquiry or not, or if the matter is so obvious, with foolproof and credible documentary evidence, that it cannot be refuted or denied by the accused employee who was called upon to submit a reply to a show cause notice, and owing to the trustworthy documentary evidence on the record, the regular inquiry can be dispensed with, but the reasons for such dispensation should be communicated to the accused employee. [2025 SCLR 5 = 2025 SCMR 40 = 2024 SCP 369]

— Dispensing with regular inquiry in disciplinary proceedings — Scope — The predominant goal of initiating a departmental proceeding, including the inquiry, is to decide whether the allegations of misconduct in the show cause notice are proven and then to confront the delinquent regarding why disciplinary action, including the imposition of a minor or major penalty, should not be taken — However, before taking such a drastic action, a fair opportunity should be provided to the employee to defend the allegations — It is a well-settled exposition of law that in departmental inquiries, the standard of proof is based on the balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence — A regular inquiry is commenced only when an evenhanded and fair opportunity to present a defense is offered. [2025 SCLR 5 = 2025 SCMR 40 = 2024 SCP 369]

— Discharge of police official from service on account of absence from duty — Scope — The principles of natural justice require that the delinquent should be afforded a fair opportunity to converge, explain and contest the claims against him before he is found guilty and condemned — The principles of natural justice and fair-mindedness are grounded in the philosophy of affording a right of audience before any detrimental action is taken, in tandem with its ensuing constituent that the foundation of any adjudication or order of a quasi-judicial authority, statutory body or any departmental authority regulated under some law must be rational and impartial and the decision maker has an adequate amount of decision making independence and the reasons of the decision arrived at should be amply well-defined, just, right and understandable, therefore it is incumbent that all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authorities should carry out their powers with a judicious and evenhanded approach to ensure justice according to tenor of law and without any violation of the principles of natural justice. [2024 SCLR 33 = 2024 SCMR 181 = 2023 SCP 355]

— Regularization — Scope — Mere creation of posts on regular side does not confer, in the absence of any statutory support, an automatic right of regularization in favour of the contract employees working against project posts. [2024 SCLR 26 = 2024 SCMR 145 = 2023 SCP 379]

— Transfer and posting — Scope — The transfer of a government official from one place or post to another to meet the exigencies of service is within the exclusive domain and competence of the competent authorities of the executive organ of the State and, ordinarily, it is not amenable to interference except in extraordinary circumstances — This principle is subject to the condition that the terms and conditions of service are not adversely affected — Moreover, an official has no vested right to claim to be posted/transferred to any particular place of his choice, nor is there a vested right to continue to hold a particular post at a particular place — The transfer and posting of a government servant is limited to the given tenure, if any, or at the pleasure of the competent authority — The question of whether the posting and transfer made by the competent authority was in the public interest is not open to judicial review by a tribunal or court and utmost caution and restraint ought to be exercised in interfering with or encroaching upon the exclusive domain of the executive authorities — The decisions in connection with posting and transfer of government servants must not be subjected to judicial scrutiny unless a law has been clearly violated or mala fide and malice is established without the need for making an inquiry — The interference of the Tribunal or courts in matters relating to postings and transfers is, therefore, an encroachment upon the executive domain and in breach of the seminal principle of separation of powers embedded in the Constitution. [2023 SCLR 70 = 2023 SCMR 2119 = 2023 SCP 255]

— Dismissal from service — Dismissal of criminal charges yet upholding disciplinary action on police officers’ misconduct — Scope — Petitions stemmed from a complaint filed by a private person, initiating both criminal and departmental disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners, an Assistant Sub-Inspector and Driver Constable of police — Complainant alleged that, while traveling from Peshawar to Lahore on the motorway, he was intercepted by a private car — Driver Constable, upon searching complainant’s car, confiscated Rs. 200,000 from the dashboard — This prompted the complainant to report to the Motorway Police, resulting in a case against the petitioners under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and Police Order, 2002 — Subsequently, the police located the petitioners’ private vehicle and returned the confiscated amount to the complainant — Despite being acquitted in the criminal trial, the petitioners faced disciplinary charges for unauthorized travel, abuse of official position, tarnishing the department’s reputation and fabricating information to conceal their misconduct — After suspension and an inquiry, the petitioners were found guilty and dismissed from service — Despite appeals, the Punjab Service Tribunal upheld their dismissal — Examining the merits, Supreme Court noted compelling evidence to the effect that the petitioners, in police uniform, were traveling on motorway in a private car without proper authorization — Their claims of being stopped by Motorway Police were contradicted by material indicating their arrest — The overall conduct, including unauthorized travel and abuse of official position, depicted gross misconduct, violating trust and legal procedures within the police force — The gravity of their actions, independent of the criminal outcome, justified disciplinary action to uphold accountability and the rule of law — Supreme Court found the petitions bereft of merit, emphasizing the need for a robust response to deter future misconduct. [2023 SCLR 69 = 2023 SCMR 2111 = 2023 SCP 301]

— Dismissal of criminal charges yet upholding disciplinary action — Scope — Acquittal in a criminal trial does not serve as an embargo against disciplinary proceedings, and that departmental and criminal proceedings may proceed concurrently, and the result of one does not impinge upon the other — Nonetheless, an acquittal in a criminal case may be considered during disciplinary proceedings but cannot be the sole determining factor in deciding the fate of the disciplinary proceedings. [2023 SCLR 69 = 2023 SCMR 2111 = 2023 SCP 301]

— Disciplinary proceedings — Scope — The departmental authorities may not be obliged to strictly follow the procedure of law in the manner as is observed by judicial forums but still they are under legal obligation to observe general principles of law and act independently to ensure free and fair treatment. [2023 SCLR 69 = 2023 SCMR 2111 = 2023 SCP 301 (Minority View)]

— Dismissal from service, ramifications of — Scope — Dismissal from service is a stigma and financial and reputational loss apart from mental torture, agony and distress are logical consequences — An employee/civil servant is not just an individual but his entire family is connected with him, whose needs depend on his job and the salary he earns — Throwing out a civil servant without following due process and fulfilling the requirements of justice & fair play and especially in a slipshod manner does not only affect him but his entire family. [2023 SCLR 69 = 2023 SCMR 2111 = 2023 SCP 301 (Minority View)]

— Relevance of criminal (trial) acquittal in subsequent disciplinary proceedings — Scope — Although the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings is not dependent upon the outcome of criminal proceedings but still there persists a view that where the criminal charges are not established before a competent court of law and the accused is acquitted on those specific charges, the departmental proceedings exactly on the same charges, would be wholly irrelevant and unjustified. [2023 SCLR 69 = 2023 SCMR 2111 = 2023 SCP 301 (Minority View)]

— Promotion — Scope — There is no vested right in promotion nor the rules which determines the eligibility criteria for promotion — It is within the exclusive domain of the competent authority to make rules in order to raise the efficiency of the employees in particular and the service in general — Promotion is neither a vested right nor could it be claimed with retrospective effect — An employee may claim under the relevant law/rules to be considered for promotion when cases of other similarly placed employees are taken up but cannot compel the employer department to fill the promotion post nor to keep it vacant or under consideration — The question of promotion exclusively falls within the domain and jurisdiction of the competent authority and, ordinarily, a court or tribunal would not interfere, except when the designated competent authority has acted in violation of law, excess of jurisdiction or without jurisdiction — The competent authority is empowered to prescribe criteria and conditions relating to eligibility for promotion — The formulation and creation of a recruitment policy falls within the exclusive domain of the competent authority and it cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny unless it infringes vested rights or is in violation of the law — Every recruitment and selection process formulated by the competent authority is presumed to be regular and aimed at choosing the most suitable person for a given position — The recruitment and selection policy formulated by the competent authority cannot be substituted by a court or tribunal, nor questioned, unless its implementation infringes vested rights or is in violation of the law. [2023 SCLR 63 = 2023 SCMR 2087 = 2023 SCP 259]