⚖️ DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, PROPORTIONALITY & REASONED ORDERS
A Critical Analysis of Federal Service Tribunal Judgment in Appeal No. 316(L)/2023
🏛️ Case Overview
The Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore, through its judgment dated 13.11.2025, decided Appeal No. 316(L)/2023, filed by Abuzar (Ex-UDC, Pakistan Navy) against the order of removal from service dated 21.06.2023.
The appeal was argued by Mr. Allah Nawaz Khosa, Advocate, while the respondents were represented by the Assistant Attorney General along with departmental representatives.
📌 Factual Background
The appellant was inducted as LDC in Pakistan Navy in 2017 and later posted at PNS ZAFAR. While serving as a writer, he was issued a Show Cause Notice alleging:
- Illegal wearing of service uniform belonging to another official.
- Sharing photographs in said uniform on social media.
- Alleged immoral conduct and illicit relations before and during service.
The appellant categorically denied the allegations and explained that:
- His antecedents were cleared at the time of induction by Police and Naval Intelligence.
- He had no criminal or immoral record.
- The alleged photograph was a momentary act and immediately deleted.
- Allegations of illicit relations were based on hearsay, without proof.
🔍 Inquiry Findings
A three-member Inquiry Committee was constituted. After recording evidence and statements, it concluded that:
- Wearing of uniform and taking a picture was proved.
- Allegations of illicit sexual relations were not proved.
- No act amounting to criminal misconduct was established.
👉 Recommendation of Inquiry Committee:
A minor penalty — reduction to a lower stage in pay for one year, without cumulative effect.
⚠️ Arbitrary Action by the Authority
Despite the inquiry findings and recommendation, the competent authority, without recording any reasons, imposed a major penalty of removal from service.
This unilateral action became the central legal controversy.
⚖️ Legal Arguments Raised by Appellant’s Counsel
Learned counsel Mr. Allah Nawaz Khosa, Advocate, forcefully contended that:
- The disciplinary proceedings violated the Civil Servants (Efficiency & Disciplinary) Rules, 2020.
- The authority failed to provide reasons for disagreeing with the inquiry report.
- Enhancement of punishment from minor to major penalty without justification was illegal, arbitrary, and mala fide.
- The appellant had an unblemished service record, making removal grossly disproportionate.
- The impugned order offended the principles of natural justice, proportionality, and due process.
📚 Judicial Reasoning & Case Law
The Tribunal observed that:
- The competent authority may disagree with an inquiry report, but such disagreement must be reasoned.
- Failure to record reasons renders the order void in law.
- The inquiry committee had exonerated the appellant from serious moral and criminal charges.
- The authority failed to assess proportionality of punishment.
The Tribunal relied upon authoritative precedents, including:
- 2013 SCMR 572 (Ikramullah case)
- 2015 PLC 322 (Habib Bank Ltd. v. Ejaz Hussain)
These cases firmly establish that enhancement of penalty without reasons is unsustainable.
🧠 CRUX OF THE JUDGMENT (Ratio Decidendi)
A disciplinary authority cannot enhance punishment from a minor to a major penalty without assigning cogent, germane, and reasoned justification, especially when the inquiry committee has exonerated the employee from serious charges. Such action is arbitrary, violates natural justice, and is liable to be struck down.
✅ Final Decision
The appeal was partially allowed:
- The order of removal from service was set aside.
- The penalty was modified to minor penalty (reduction to a lower stage in pay for one year).
- The appellant was ordered to be reinstated with all back benefits.