Supreme Court: Off-duty violence against wife is civil servant misconduct

The Supreme Court has ruled that serious misconduct by a civil servant in his private life, including violence against his wife, can constitute service misconduct even if it happens outside office hours and has no direct link to official duties, Daily Times reported.

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

Abbasi had challenged a Federal Service Tribunal decision that maintained the departmental penalty imposed on him. The judgment was written by Justice Shahid Waheed, with Justice Ayesha A. Malik as a member of the bench.

The court observed that the dignity of women is a fundamental constitutional value, and that violence does not become a private matter merely because it takes place inside the home.

It noted that under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2020, conduct unbecoming of an officer and prejudicial to service discipline can amount to misconduct outside the workplace. The court clarified, however, that an FIR alone cannot justify departmental punishment.

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

The court 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, but it does not necessarily establish innocence for departmental purposes. Acquittal therefore does not automatically invalidate departmental proceedings if misconduct is independently established through evidence.

The court found the penalty of compulsory retirement proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. It found no legal error, no violation of due process and no substantial question of law of public importance, and refused leave to appeal.