Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 212

Law: Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973

Section: 4(i)(b)

(1) The punishment must be proportionate vis-à-vis the allegations and be proven guilty of misconduct (2) The Courts and Tribunals under the power of judicial review can examine the question of proportionality or disproportionality in the quantum of punishment. Summary: The petitioner challenges the Federal Service Tribunal's decision to reduce the respondent's dismissal to compulsory retirement after departmental inquiry found him guilty of participating in an organized fraud in PLI loan accounts, including verification of fake schedules, unauthorized passing of bogus loans and repayments, and related misconduct. The Supreme Court holds that the Tribunal improperly relied on the co-accused's outcome without independently examining separate inquiry reports and evidence; stresses that tribunals must carefully review inquiry findings and apply proportionality when modifying punishments; and remands the matter to the Tribunal to re-decide the appeal on merits after independent consideration of both inquiries, directing an expeditious decision within three months. Core points Respondent served as AAO (Loan Accounts / Honorarium RC) and earlier as Accounts Officer (Loan Account). Record shows respondent verified at least 34 fake schedules and passed 36 bogus loans and 80 fake repayments, causing significant loss. Disciplinary inquiry found allegations proven and imposed major penalty: dismissal under Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973. Federal Service Tribunal reduced dismissal to compulsory retirement, apparently by analogy with co-accused Saleem Ahmed's case. Government argued Tribunal ignored inquiry evidence and wrongly relied on co-accused's modified penalty; asserted proper procedure and evidence supported dismissal. Respondent argued procedural defects in inquiry, lack of some documents, denial of cross-examination, discrimination in penalties compared to others, and mitigating factors (length of service, forced leave, NAB arrest). Supreme Court emphasized the Tribunal's duty to independently examine inquiry reports and evidence before altering penalties. Court reiterated principles: employer has primary authority to…