Error Apparent in Review: Supreme Court Recalls Ramzan’s Service Dismissal Decision

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

Supreme Court corrects a material mistake in Ramzan's service case

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has recalled its earlier decision in Muhammad Ramzan's service dispute after finding an error apparent on the face of the record. The earlier decision had relied on an old dismissal order that had lost its efficacy after the department reinstated him under a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment. Material facts about a later dismissal and the treatment of employees facing the same allegations had also escaped attention. Judgment, paragraphs 4–8 and 10.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar wrote the judgment dated 9 June 2026, sitting with Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan. The proceedings were C.R.P. Nos. 1226 and 1227 of 2023 in the connected matters numbered 1590-L and 1309-L of 2021. The supplied six-page judgment is approved for reporting but does not print a reporter citation. Complete judgment.

The Court restored the underlying proceedings, heard the parties on merits, converted both petitions into appeals and disposed of them with directions that the department follow paragraph 6 of the Tribunal's judgment dated 2 April 2021 and pass an appropriate order. It did not finally clear Ramzan of the departmental allegations or make an unconditional award of back benefits. Judgment, paragraph 10.

A series of dismissals, reinstatements and fresh inquiries

Ramzan challenged his dismissal of 15 August 2013 through Service Appeal No. 4415 of 2014. On 15 December 2015, the Tribunal ordered reinstatement while leaving the department free to hold a fresh inquiry. That inquiry ended in another dismissal on 10 January 2017. His departmental representation was rejected on 24 June 2017. Judgment, paragraph 2.

The Tribunal allowed his next appeal, Service Appeal No. 3878 of 2017, on 13 December 2018 because of apparent lapses, and again remanded the matter for a fresh inquiry. The department reinstated him on 8 January 2019. He was dismissed again on 5 October 2019. Judgment, paragraphs 2, 6 and 8.

Service Appeal No. 82 of 2020 then resulted in the Tribunal's order of 2 April 2021. Ramzan was reinstated subject to the outcome of a regular inquiry, and the department was directed to decide the intervening period after its final outcome. Ramzan challenged the remand and sought reinstatement with back benefits; the Regional Police Officer, Multan, challenged the Tribunal's order. Judgment, paragraph 2.

The Supreme Court's decision of 1 November 2023 dismissed Ramzan's petition and allowed the department's appeal after conversion of its petition. The present review concerned the material factual basis of that decision. Judgment, paragraphs 1 and 6.

Why parity with the other employees mattered

Two employees, Asif Nadeem and Sohail Anwar, had faced the same allegations. In Service Appeals Nos. 5033 and 5034 of 2019, the Tribunal reinstated them on 24 February 2020 and remanded their cases for regular inquiries with ample opportunity of a fair trial. Ramzan's remand followed the principle of consistency and parity with that treatment. Judgment, paragraphs 4 and 8.

The Additional Advocate General, Punjab, conceded the position reflected in the Tribunal's order: the regular inquiry was meant to examine whether Ramzan had been discriminated against and denied the treatment given to those facing similar allegations. The Supreme Court found that this critical position had not been addressed in its earlier decision. Judgment, paragraphs 5–6.

Parity here supported the inquiry process. It did not mean that the allegations had disappeared or that reinstatement pending inquiry was equivalent to final exoneration. That distinction follows from the Tribunal's conditional reinstatement and the Supreme Court's final direction to proceed under the Tribunal's inquiry directions. Judgment, paragraphs 2, 4 and 10.

The old dismissal order could no longer decide the case

The earlier Supreme Court decision had treated Ramzan's original dismissal as already affirmed up to the Supreme Court. But the department had subsequently reinstated him on 8 January 2019 while implementing the Tribunal's judgment. A fresh dismissal followed on 5 October 2019. The review judgment found that reliance on the old dismissal overlooked these material developments. Judgment, paragraphs 6 and 8.

The Court also revisited the consolidated litigation in which C.P. No. 2043-L of 2015, filed by Ramzan, had been clubbed. That litigation concerned 18 writ petitions filed by 47 individuals whose grievances included suspension, dismissal, withdrawal of constable numbers and stopped salaries. The department alleged that those claimants had obtained fraudulent transfer orders and drawn salaries as impostors. Judgment, paragraph 7.

Those were allegations described in the consolidated litigation. The review judgment expressly stated that the allegations against Ramzan were entirely different from those against the beneficiaries of fake appointments. Treating the grouped litigation as if it conclusively determined his later, distinct service position contributed to the mistake the Court corrected. Judgment, paragraphs 7–10.

Error apparent is narrower than a second appeal

The Supreme Court explained that review can correct a decision founded on an erroneous assumption about material facts, a misreading of evidence or a relevant legal error apparent from the record. A manifest wrong may justify reopening the judgment so that effective justice can be done. Judgment, paragraph 9.

At the same time, review is not a fresh hearing simply because another view is possible. The error must be evident and capable of establishment without elaborate argument. Repeating rejected submissions, changing counsel to argue the same ground again, or pointing to inconsequential mistakes is insufficient. The judgment also warns against using review to introduce grounds not raised at the original hearing. Judgment, paragraph 9.

The Court cited Commissioner Inland Revenue Z-III, Corporate Regional Tax Office, Tax House, Karachi v. M/s MSC Switzerland Geneva and others, 2023 SCMR 1011 = 2023 SCP 150. That authority is identified as cited in the supplied judgment; its separate full text has not been independently verified for this report. Judgment, paragraph 9.

What the Court actually ordered

The Court found an error apparent because Ramzan had been denied relief on the basis of an earlier dismissal letter that had lost effect after reinstatement pursuant to the Tribunal's judgment. It recalled the order under review, restored the two underlying proceedings to their original numbers and positions, and then heard and disposed of them after conversion into appeals. Judgment, paragraph 10.

The department must proceed according to paragraph 6 of the Tribunal's judgment of 2 April 2021 and pass an appropriate order. The complete text of that Tribunal paragraph is not reproduced in the supplied Supreme Court judgment. Its precise terms should therefore be checked from the Tribunal record rather than reconstructed from this report. Judgment, paragraph 10.

The supplied judgment also varies in its descriptions of the two underlying case numbers and which party filed each. Its heading lists C.R.P. 1226/2023 in C.A. 1590-L/2021 and C.R.P. 1227/2023 in C.P.L.A. 1309-L/2021. This report preserves that heading for identification and describes the final relief from paragraph 10 without trying to resolve those textual inconsistencies.

Practical effect for service and review litigation

The decision shows why a service record must be traced through every operative dismissal, reinstatement and inquiry order. A historical dismissal cannot safely be treated as the current legal position when later departmental and Tribunal orders have changed its effect. It also shows why the treatment of employees facing the same allegations may be material to a remand for inquiry. Judgment, paragraphs 4–10.

For a review petition, the decisive point is the identifiable error in the record and its effect on the result. Ramzan succeeded because the Court found that material facts had been misunderstood or overlooked, rather than because it simply preferred a new view of an already considered issue. Judgment, paragraphs 6–10.

For a different outcome after a completed inquiry, read Gulfam Nasir's back-benefits case. In that case, the employee had been exonerated; Ramzan's judgment directs the departmental process to proceed under the Tribunal's order.

Sources

• Complete supplied six-page Supreme Court judgment — Muhammad Ramzan v. Regional Police Officer, Multan and others, C.R.P. Nos. 1226 and 1227 of 2023, decided 9 June 2026.
• Commissioner Inland Revenue Z-III v. M/s MSC Switzerland Geneva and others, 2023 SCMR 1011 = 2023 SCP 150, as cited in paragraph 9 of the supplied judgment. Separate text and later treatment not independently verified.

The supplied PDF is the primary source. A matching direct official download, a subsequently assigned reporter citation and later judicial treatment have not been independently verified.