The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that serious misconduct by a civil servant in his private life, including violence against his wife, could constitute service misconduct even if the act was committed outside office hours and had no direct connection with official duties. Dismissing a petition filed by an Intelligence Bureau (IB) employee, the apex court held that acquittal in a criminal case did not automatically invalidate departmental proceedings if evidence independently established misconduct. The court upheld the compulsory retirement of Jawad Abbasi, who was serving as a cook in the IB and was accused of setting his wife on fire. He had challenged the Federal Service Tribunal’s decision maintaining the departmental penalty imposed on him. In a judgment authored by Justice Shahid Waheed, with Justice Ayesha A. Malik as a member of the bench, the court observed that the dignity of women was a fundamental constitutional value and that a civil servant’s conduct at home could also reflect upon his suitability for public office and the reputation of the institution. The court observed that violence did not become a private matter merely because it occurred within the home. Under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2020, conduct unbecoming of an officer and prejudicial to service discipline could constitute misconduct even outside the workplace. Read: SC sets up legal aid cell for deserving litigants It clarified that an FIR alone could not justify departmental punishment. However, in this case, the inquiry officer had examined 13 witnesses in the employee’s presence and provided 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 served different purposes and applied different standards of proof. An acquittal meant that criminal guilt had not been established beyond reasonable doubt; it did not necessarily establish the accused’s innocence for departmental purposes or certify his fitness for government service. It further observed that the employee had been given an opportunity to defend himself and that the compulsory retirement penalty was proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. Finding no legal error, violation of due process, or substantial question of law of public importance, the SC refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.