Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 1061. In this matter between Const. P. 6129/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Janib (Petitioner) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Const. P. 6129/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2026 SHC KHI 1061 PARTIES: Janib (Petitioner) ORDER DATE: 07-MAY-26 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Constitutional Petition No. D-6129 of 2025 (Janib versus The Province of Sindh & others)

Constitutional Petition No. D-4898 of 2022 (Hafeez Ullah versus The Chief Secretary & others)

Constitutional Petition No. D-1422 of 2023 (Asad Hussain versus The Province of Sindh & others)

Date Order with signature of Judge Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi

Date of hearing: 21.04.2026 Date of announcement of judgment: 07.05.2026

Nemo for the petitioner in CP No. D-4898 of 2022

Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Domki advocate for the petitioner in CP No. D - 6129/2025

M/s Malik Altaf Hussain, Moin Khan Sandilo and Rafiullah advocates for the petitioner in CP No. D-1422/2023

Mr. Abdul Jali l Zubedi, Assistant AG alongwith Mr. Ghulam Ali Brahmani, Secretary (Services) Services General Administration & Coordination Department (SGA&CD), Government of Sindh

Ms. Wajiha Mehdi, Assistant Attorney General

Mr. M.M. Aqil Awan advocate and Ms. Laraib Awan advocate for respondents No.3, 4 and 5 in CP No. D -6129/2025 and for respondent No.3 in CP No. D-4898/2022

Mr. Danish Rashid Khan advocate for respondent No.6 in CP No. D - 6129/2025 and respondent No.4 in CP No. D-1422/2023

Syed Manzoor Ali, Special Prosecutor NAB ---------------------

JUDGMENT Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J. By this consolidated judgment, we propose to dispose of the instant petitions together with the accompanying applications, as they raise analogous questions of law and fact concerning the eligibility of public servants, who have entered into voluntary return arrangements under the NAB law, to continue holding public office. Accordingly, the adjudication of the issues involved herein is inextricably connected with, and contingent upon, th e determination of the broader legal question presently under consideration before this Court.

2. The Petitioner, namely Janib, has instituted Constitutional Petition No. D -6129 of 2025 under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Paki stan, 1973, seeking the following relief: –

i. Direct the Respondent Nos.3 to 18 to appear before this Court and to explain under what authority of law they have assumed their offices and continue to hold the same thereafter their holding the offices may ve ry kindly be declared as illegal and ordered to be set aside;

ii. Declare promotions of the Respondent Nos.3 to 18 illegal, unconstitutional and of no legal effect from the date on which they entered into VR with NAB and all emoluments, salaries and other ben efits be recovered from them;

iii. Restrain the Respondent Nos.3 to 18 from holding public office till final adjudication of the captioned petition.

iv. Any other relief this Honorable Court may deem appropriate and proper in the circumstances of the case.

3. The above Constitutional Petition has been instituted to impugn the continued retention in public office of Respondent Nos. 3 to 18, who, it is an admitted position, availed themselves of the benefit of the Voluntary Return (VR) mechanism under Section 25(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (NAO, 1999). The record, including the list furnished by the Services, General Administration & Coordination Department (SGA&CD), unequivocally establishes that the said respondents entered into voluntary ret urn arrangements with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in connection with allegations of corruption. Notwithstanding such settlements, the respondents were neither dismissed from service nor subjected to major penalties; rather, several of them continued in service, and some were even accorded promotions prior to their eventual superannuation. It is the specific grievance of the Petitioner that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, being the competent authorities, have acted in flagrant disregard of the law by a llowing such officers who are deemed to have been convicted under the NAB law to remain in public service and to

derive all attendant benefits of their respective offices. The matter assumes heightened significance in view of the constitutional scrutiny undertaken by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Case No. 17 of 2016, wherein the vires of Section 25(a) of the NAO, 1999 were examined. In particular, the order dated 08.03.2023 passed by the apex Court is of pivotal relevance, whereby it was observed that the a mendments introduced to the NAO in June 2022 extended the applicability of the proviso to Section 15(a) to the entire ambit of Section 25, encompassing both clauses (a) and (b). The legal consequence thereof is that a person availing the benefit of volunta ry return under Section 25(a) incurs the same disqualification from holding public office as one entering into a plea bargain under Section 25(b). The Petitioner has further placed reliance upon proceedings in Constitutional Petition No. D - 6027/2020, wherein, vide order dated 05.10.2021, this Court had acknowledged the pendency of adjudication before the Supreme Court concerning the vires of Sections 25 and 15 of the NAO, 1999. In paragraph 8 of the said order, it was observed that the issue pertaining to o fficers who had entered into voluntary return arrangements would be governed by the eventual determination of the apex Court, and the matter was accordingly left open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings. 4. According to the Petitioner, the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court dated 08.03.2023 has since settled the legal position beyond any ambiguity. The respondents who availed voluntary return now stand at par with those who entered into plea bargains and are, therefore, deemed to have been convicted for the purposes of disqualification under Section 15 of the NAO, 1999. Despite the crystallization of this legal position, no lawful or meaningful action has been initiated by the official respondents against Respondent Nos. 3 to 18. On the contrary, it is asserted that only minor penalties, if any, were imposed, which are grossly disproportionate to the legal consequences arising from their deemed conviction. The Petitioner asserted that the continued retention and promotion of such individ uals in public service is in direct contravention of the statutory framework and undermines the foundational principles of transparency, merit, and accountability in governance. It is further alleged that the actions of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 constitute a mala fide and colorable

exercise of authority, influenced by extraneous considerations, including political pressure and favoritism, thereby causing serious prejudice to public interest by fostering corruption and eroding institutional integrity. In the f oregoing circumstances, the Petitioner seeks the intervention of this Court for the enforcement of the law as declared by the Supreme Court, and for the issuance of appropriate directions to ensure that individuals disqualified under the NAO, 1999 are not permitted to hold or continue in public office in any capacity whatsoever. 5. Upon notice the Respondent No. 6 has submitted a comprehensive counter affidavit on his own behalf and on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, wherein both the maintainability of th e instant petition and the Petitioner’s entitlement to the relief claimed have been emphatically disputed. At the outset, it is contended that the present petition, though styled as one seeking a writ of quo warranto under Article 199(1)(b) of the Constitu tion of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is not maintainable in its current form. It is asserted in the counter -affidavit that Article 199(1)(b), which empowers the High Court to require a person holding or purporting to hold a public office to demo nstrate the lawful authority under which such office is held, envisages proceedings against a single office -holder. Consequently, a composite petition directed against multiple individuals is asserted to be legally untenable and misconceived. It is further contended that a writ of quo warranto constitutes the narrowest and most limited form of constitutional jurisdiction, wherein the Petitioner merely assumes the role of a relator. Elaborating upon the scope of such jurisdiction, Respondent No. 6 submits th at interference by this Court is warranted only where it is established that: (i) the incumbent lacks the prescribed qualifications for the office; (ii) the appointment has been made in contravention of the applicable statutory procedure; or (iii) the appo intment has been made by an authority lacking lawful competence. It is contended that none of these conditions are attracted in the present case, as neither the appointments nor the service records of the Respondents have been impugned on any recognized legal ground. 6. A preliminary objection has also been raised with respect to the bona fides of the Petitioner. It is contended that in proceedings of quo warranto, the Petitioner must establish that he is acting

bona fide, in good faith, and in the public i nterest. The Court, it is submitted, must be vigilant in distinguishing genuine public interest litigation from proceedings instituted for ulterior motives, including harassment or coercion. In this regard, the Respondent questions the Petitioner’s motive and asserts that no explanation has been furnished as to the circumstances prompting the institution of the present petition. The Respondent has further invoked the doctrine of delay and laches, submitting that the Voluntary Return (VR) arrangements under the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law were entered into by Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 well before the filing of the instant petition on 20.11.2025. It is contended that the Petitioner has failed to provide any cogent explanation for approaching this Cou rt after such an inordinate delay, which, in itself, is indicative of mala fide intent. It has also been brought on record that multiple petitions on identical grounds have previously been instituted by various individuals against the Respondents and other officials of the Government of Sindh, some of which, it is alleged, were motivated and resulted in undue harassment of public functionaries. Reference has been made to prior disciplinary proceedings conducted in accordance with law, culminating in minor p enalties imposed upon the Respondents, namely: Respondent No. 3 (Order dated 27.04.2018), Respondent No. 4 (Order dated 07.05.2018), Respondent No. 5 (Order dated 07.05.2018), and Respondent No. 6 (Order dated 17.07.2019), all of which have attained finality. 7. Reliance has further been placed upon a series of constitutional petitions previously filed on the same subject, including CPD Nos. 6027/2020, 5391/2020, 1058/2020, 3859/2020, and 4375/2020, all of which were, according to the Respondent, dismissed by this Court through various judgments and orders. It is thus contended that the present petition is barred by the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and is not maintainable. It is also contended that certain issues raised in the petition pertain to matters of transfer and posting, which fall within the domain of the terms and conditions of service of civil servants and are exclusively triable by the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution. Accordingly, it is submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court is barred in respect of such matters.

8. On merits, it is contende d that the Petitioner’s case is predicated upon the assertion that the Respondents, having availed the benefit of the Voluntary Re turn (VR) scheme under Section 25(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, stand disqualified from holding public office. In rebuttal, it is submitted that Section 25(a), as it stood at the relevant time, provided for a complete discharge from li ability upon acceptance of the voluntary return by the Chairman NAB and payment of the determined amount. It is emphasized that, at the material time, such voluntary return neither constituted a criminal conviction nor attracted disqualification under Sect ion 15 of the NAO, 1999. It is further submitted that it was only through the National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2022 that voluntary return under Section 25(a) was equated with plea bargain under Section 25(b), thereby attracting disqualification con sequences. Prior to such amendment, only plea bargain entailed penal consequences. Reliance is placed upon Article 12(1)(a) of the Constitution, which prohibits retrospective penal action, to contend that the amended provisions cannot be applied retrospectively to acts completed prior to the amendment. In support of the aforesaid contentions, reliance has been placed upon authoritative precedents, including Tariq Cotton Mills Limited v. Joint Registrar (NLR 1989 Cr. 715), Air Marshal (R) Waqar Azeem v. The State (NLR 2003 Cr. 361), Mansoor Ahmed Qureshi v. The State (PLD 2005 Karachi 443), and Muhammad Afzal v. SSP (PLD 2005 Lahore 377) . In view of the foregoing submissions, Respondent No. 6 has prayed that the present petition, being not maintainable, barre d by law, lacking bona fides, hit by delay and laches, and devoid of merit, be dismissed with costs. 9. That the Petitioner, namely Hafeez Ullah, has instituted Constitutional Petition No. D-4898 of 2022 under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the following reliefs: –

i. Direct Respondent No.1 to immediately suspend the Respondent No.3, and take disciplinary action against him under the Sindh Servants (Efficiency and Discipline Rules), 1973;

ii. Direct Respondent No.1 to ensure that Respondent No.2 shall not be appointed to any government position or public office in the future;

iii. Direct the Respondent No.1 to immediately rectify the notifications supra in light of the laws of the land;

iv. To award costs of the Petition;

v. To grant any other relief this Hon’ble Court may deem appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

10. The above Constitutional Petition has been instituted by the Petitioner, seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of quo warranto. The Petitio ner has called upon Respondent No. 3 to justify the lawful authority under which he continues to hold the office of Chief Engineer (BS -20), Guddu Barrage, Sukkur, despite allegedly incurring disqualification on account of entering into a voluntary return a rrangement with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). The Petitioner contends that the continued occupation of public office by Respondent No. 3 is contrary to law and in violation of binding judicial pronouncements rendered by the superior courts. It is asserted that the Supreme Court of Pakistan, as well as this Court, have consistently held through various judgments and orders that a civil servant who enters into a voluntary return (VR) or plea bargain with NAB is disentitled from holding public off ice, as such an act constitutes an admission of guilt involving corruption and misconduct. It is further the case of the Petitioner that, notwithstanding these settled legal principles, Respondent No. 1, being the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, and the administrative head of the Province, has failed to discharge his constitutional and statutory obligations by not initiating appropriate action against Respondent No. 3. The Petitioner submits that Respondent No. 1 is duty -bound to ensure enforcement of the law and to prevent individuals disqualified under the legal framework from continuing in public service. Likewise, Respondent No. 2, being the authority mandated to prevent corruption, promote public awareness, and enforce anti - corruption laws, has al so allegedly failed to perform its functions by permitting Respondent No. 3 to remain in office despite his involvement in a corruption -related matter resolved through voluntary return.

11. The factual background indicates that Respondent No. 3, an officer of the Irrigation Department, was appointed as Chief Engineer (BS-20), Guddu Barrage Region, Sukkur, vide notification dated 09.04.2021, and was subsequently entrusted with additional charge of Chief Engineer (Irrigation), Sukkur Barrage Right Bank Region, Larkana, through notification dated 11.11.2021. According to the Petitioner, these appointments were made despite the fact that Respondent No. 3 had earlier been implicated in corruption during his tenure as Project Director, Right Bank Outfall Drain, Hyderabad Circle, and had entered into a voluntary return arrangement with NAB in respect of such allegations. Reliance has been placed upon the order dated 15.12.2021 passed by this Court in C.P. No. 1564/2021, wherein it was categorically observed that a civil servant opting for voluntary return or plea bargain must be subjected to departmental proceedings and, upon admission of acquiring assets through corrupt means, cannot be permitted to continue in public office within the Federal or Provincial Government or any state -owned entity. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Hanif Hyder v. Federation of Pakistan , wherein the apex Court examined Section 25(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and he ld that the provision of voluntary return had been misused, undermining the objectives of the accountability regime. The Supreme Court further held that an admission of corruption through voluntary return constitutes misconduct warranting departmental action, and such an individual cannot be allowed to continue in public office. The Petitioner submits that entering into voluntary return under Section 25(a) of the NAO, 1999 amounts to an unequivocal admission of guilt, which falls squarely within the ambit of “misconduct” as defined under the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, as well as the Sindh Civil Servants (Conduct) Rules, 2008. Consequently, Respondent No. 3 was liable to be proceeded against departmentally and could not lawfully continue in service, much less be appointed to a senior position. It is further alleged that Respondent No. 3 has not only been retained in service but has also been posted to positions analogous to those where the alleged acts of corruption were committed, thereby exposing the public exchequer to further risk. According to the Petitioner, such conduct on the part of the official respondents is not only illegal and arbitrary but also amounts to

disregard and violation of binding judgments of the superior courts. In view of the foregoing, the Petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for enforcement of the rule of law and has prayed that Respondent No. 3 be restrained from holding public office on account of his disqualification arising from his prior conduct involving voluntary return. 12. Upon notice the Respondent No. 1, namely the Secretary (Services), Services, General Administration & Coordination Department (SGA&CD), Government of Sindh, has submitted para- wise comments ref uting the allegations contained in the petition and elucidating the official stance with reference to the service record of Respondent No. 3. At the very outset, it is submitted that the allegations advanced by the Petitioner are misconceived and devoid of substance, inasmuch as the case of Respondent No. 3 (Syed Sardar Ali Shah) has already been dealt with strictly in accordance with the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973. It is contended that during his tenure as Superintending Engineer (BS-19), Rohri Canal Circle, Hyderabad, Respondent No. 3 was subjected to departmental proceedings on the allegation that he had opted for Voluntary Return (VR) of an amount of Rs. 400,000/ - before the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Sindh, the reby allegedly admitting involvement in misappropriation of Government funds. Consequently, a Show Cause Notice bearing No. SOIII(SGA&CD)3 -158/2016 dated 13.12.2017 was issued to him under the relevant provisions of the aforesaid Rules, clearly delineating the charge of misconduct arising from the said voluntary return. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 3 duly furnished his reply dated 22.01.2018 to the said Show Cause Notice, wherein he provided his explanation to the allegations levelled against him. Thereafter, upon due consideration of the reply and the material available on record, a Final Show Cause Notice dated 13.04.2018 was issued, affording him a further opportunity of personal hearing in consonance with the principles of natural justice. In response thereto, Respondent No. 3 submitted his detailed reply/report on 16.04.2018. 13. It is emphatically submitted that the entire disciplinary proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with law, ensuring observance of due process, fair hearing, and adherence to the governing statutory framework. Upon culmination of the

proceedings, the Competent Authority, i.e., the Chief Minister, Sindh, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 5(4)(b) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, imposed a minor penalty of “withholding of annual increment for a period of one year” upon Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 27.04.2018. Respondent No. 1 submits that once a penalty has been imposed by the Competent Authority after due inqui ry and consideration in accordance with law, the matter attains finality at the departmental level, and no further proceedings remain pending against Respondent No. 3 in respect of the said allegations. It is further submitted that subsequent transfers and postings of Respondent No. 3 have been affected purely on administrative grounds and in accordance with the recommendations of the concerned department. In this regard, it is stated that with the approval of the Competent Authority (Chief Minister, Sindh) , Respondent No. 3, while serving as Chief Engineer (BS -20), Guddu Barrage Region, Irrigation Department, Sukkur, was transferred and posted as Chief Engineer (Irrigation) (BS -20), Sukkur Barrage Left Bank Region, Irrigation Department, Sukkur, vide Notifi cation dated 09.04.2021. Such transfer and posting orders fall squarely within the executive domain and are regulated by service laws; they do not amount to an appointment to a public office so as to attract writ jurisdiction in the nature of quo warranto. Respondent No. 1 further clarifies that Respondent No. 3 is presently not holding any additional charge of the post of Chief Engineer (Irrigation), Sukkur Barrage Right Bank Region, Larkana; consequently, any grievance raised by the Petitioner in this reg ard has become infructuous. It is thus submitted that the Petitioner has failed to establish any illegality with regard to the appointment, qualification, or competence of Respondent No. 3 to hold the post in question. The case of the Petitioner is primari ly predicated upon the factum of voluntary return, which has already been duly addressed through departmental proceedings culminating in the imposition of a penalty. Respondent No. 1 maintains that the Petitioner is, in effect, seeking to reopen a matter that has attained finality under the applicable service rules, which is impermissible in law, particularly in proceedings of quo warranto where the scope of inquiry is circumscribed. In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that the instant petit ion,

being devoid of merit, misconceived in law, and not maintainable, be dismissed. 14. Private Respondent No. 3 has submitted a detailed counter affidavit opposing the instant petition, inter alia, on the grounds of non-maintainability, lack of jurisdict ion, and misapplication of the constitutional remedy of quo warranto. At the very outset, it is contended that this Court, vide its earlier order dated 28.09.2022, had already expressed serious reservations regarding the maintainability of the petition. It is further averred that such reservations remained unaddressed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in subsequent proceedings, which, according to the Respondent, itself underscores the inherent defects in the petition. On this ground alone, it is ur ged that the petition is liable to…

Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant