Reinstated civil servants entitled to full back pay, rules SC

Bench states financial restitution not discretionary where dismissal found wrongful

ISLAMABAD:

In a ruling with far-reaching implications for public service law, the Supreme Court has held that a civil servant who is reinstated after a wrongful dismissal is, as a general rule, entitled to receive full back pay and benefits for the period he remained out of service.

The verdict, authored by Justice Shahid Waheed, came while adjudicating the question of whether police officials, upon annulment of a dismissal order, automatically acquire the right to back pay.

The five-judge bench, led by Justice Waheed, issued the 13-page judgment reaffirming that financial restitution is not discretionary where a dismissal is found to be wrongful.

"Regarding the appropriateness of awarding back pay in instances of wrongful dismissal, a fundamental principle emerges: such pay should, as a general rule, be granted to the civil servant who had been wrongly dismissed from his position," the judgment stated.

The ruling explained that this directive fundamentally aligns with the overarching goal of restoring the civil servant to his original economic condition, a condition that would have been maintained had the wrongful action not occurred.

The court observed that wrongful termination is not merely an administrative error but a violation of constitutional rights.

The judgment noted that "it is vital to remember that in cases of wrongful dismissal from service, the responsibility for the injustice lies squarely with the authority, while the repercussions are suffered by the civil servant".

This scenario constitutes what can be regarded as a constitutional tort, as it results in a civil servant being stripped of his means of livelihood. This deprivation connects directly to Article 9 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life.

It further elaborated that the term 'life' encompasses a broader interpretation, encapsulating not only mere existence but also the means to sustain it.

"William Shakespeare, in his renowned play 'The Merchant of Venice,' aptly captures this sentiment with the poignant line: 'You take my life, when you do take the means whereby I live.' Therefore, it is unjustifiable to permit the authority to evade accountability for its wrongful actions by relieving it of the obligation to compensate the civil servant with full back pay."

The court noted that such compensation is not merely a matter of financial restitution, as it is a necessary step to rectify the imbalance created by the authority's wrongdoing and to uphold the integrity of the civil servant's constitutional rights and dignity.

The court further stressed that administrative authorities must act within the bounds of law and fairness.

"The authority must provide persuasive and cogent rationales for its decisions, and be willing to defend its decisions before the judiciary or other forums when required. The authority that exercises discretion must be acutely aware that, if asserted arbitrarily or capriciously, this power can easily become a mechanism of oppression and injustice."

Therefore, the court noted, it is incumbent upon the authority to bring into play its discretion fairly, reasonably, and lawfully. "To do anything less would not only betray the trust vested in it but also undermine the foundational tenets of the rule of law, and that would warrant judicial intervention."

The judgment explained that annulment of a dismissal typically arises in four circumstances.

"To fully grasp the legal implications, it is crucial to recognise that the decision to annul a dismissal typically arises in one of four specific circumstances. Firstly, this may occur when it is determined that the punishment was enacted due to a procedural irregularity—meaning that the correct protocols were not followed during the disciplinary process—leading to a de novo inquiry."

"Secondly, a punishment order may be rescinded based on a technicality or on taking a lenient view of the matter. Thirdly, dismissal may be overturned if this punishment is deemed disproportionate to the substantiated misconduct, suggesting that the severity of the action taken against the civil servant does not correspond to the seriousness of his behaviour, and, consequently, the punishment is altered and replaced with another."

"Lastly, a dismissal is set aside when the alleged misconduct is not proven, indicating that the civil servant did not engage in behaviour warranting such punitive measures."

The court said these scenarios divide dismissals into two legal categories.

"These scenarios clearly delineate dismissals into two categories: (i) unfair dismissal, and (ii) wrongful dismissal. The first three circumstances typically fall within the realm of unfair dismissal, highlighting procedural, technical, or proportionality issues."