Table of Contents:
- Introduction
- Court and Bench Details
- Key Issue
- Case Background
- Employment Details
- Allegations and Dismissal
- Lower Court Decisions
- Labour Court Judgment
- Appellate Tribunal Judgment
- Lahore High Court Judgment
- Supreme Court Decision
- Contradictions Identified
- Proportionality of Punishment
- Final Ruling
- Conclusion
1. Introduction:
This case addresses the legality of the compulsory retirement imposed on Mst. Shahida Siddiqa by the Lahore High Court and examines whether the punishment was proportionate to the charges proven against her.
2. Court and Bench Details:
- Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
- Judge: Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
3. Key Issue:
Whether the Lahore High Court’s order of compulsory retirement was justified, given the appellant’s 28-year unblemished service record and the proven charge of negligence.
4. Case Background:
Employment Details:
- Joined Allied Bank in 1979.
- Promoted to Officer Grade-III in 1986 and Grade-II in 1995.
Allegations and Dismissal:
- Transferred to Samundri Road Branch, Faisalabad, in 2007.
- Suspended on 19.10.2007 for allegedly disclosing a secret code to former manager Shoukat Naeem Warraich, who defrauded the bank.
- Inquiry Officer partially proved negligence on 25.01.2008.
- Dismissed from service on 07.05.2008.
5. Lower Court Decisions:
Labour Court Judgment (19.06.2010):
- Found her negligent but not involved in fraud or embezzlement.
- Ordered reinstatement at a lower grade (Grade-III) without back benefits.
Appellate Tribunal Judgment (19.09.2011):
- Upheld the Labour Court’s decision.
Lahore High Court Judgment (16.01.2013):
- Acknowledged her unblemished 28-year service record.
- Declared dismissal too harsh but reinstatement unjustified.
- Ordered compulsory retirement.
6. Supreme Court Decision:
Contradictions Identified:
- The High Court acknowledged her long, unblemished service record but imposed severe punishment, which was contradictory.
- This inconsistency undermined the principles of justice.
Proportionality of Punishment:
- Penalties must align with the degree of guilt.
- Negligence alone, without proven fraud, does not justify compulsory retirement.
- Referenced Saifullah and Auditor-General of Pakistan cases, emphasizing reform over harsh penalties.
7. Final Ruling:
- Appeal partially allowed.
- High Court’s order set aside.
- Labour Court’s decision upheld with modifications:
- Reinstatement at Grade-III with full back benefits and pension entitlements.
- Bank’s appeal (C.A. No. 837-L/2013) dismissed.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
8. Conclusion:
The Supreme Court emphasized proportionality in service penalties. Minor negligence, without proof of fraud or misconduct, warrants corrective measures rather than severe punishment like compulsory retirement.