Supreme Court: Violence Against Wife Off Duty Can Be Civil Servant Misconduct

The Supreme Court has held that serious misconduct by a civil servant in his private life, including violence against his wife, can constitute service misconduct. This applies even if the act took place outside office hours and has no direct link to official duties, according to 24 News.

The court dismissed a petition filed by an Intelligence Bureau employee, Jawad Abbasi, who worked as a cook in the agency. He was accused of setting his wife on fire. The court upheld his compulsory retirement.

Abbasi had challenged the Federal Service Tribunal's decision, which maintained the departmental penalty imposed on him. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. It found no legal error, no violation of due process and no substantial question of law of public importance.

The judgment was written by Justice Shahid Waheed, with Justice Ayesha A. Malik as a member of the bench. The court stated that violence does not become a private matter merely because it occurred within the home.

It noted that under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2020, conduct unbecoming of an officer could constitute misconduct even outside the workplace. It also said an FIR alone cannot justify departmental punishment.

The inquiry officer examined 13 witnesses in the employee's presence and gave him an opportunity to cross-examine them. The departmental inquiry independently established the charges, including violence against his wife and his attempt to portray the incident as her suicide.

The court held that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically invalidate departmental proceedings if misconduct is independently established through evidence. It explained that criminal and departmental proceedings serve different purposes and apply different standards of proof.

An acquittal means criminal guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt and does not certify fitness for government service, the court said. It found that the employee had been given a chance to defend himself and that compulsory retirement was proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.