Latest news with #MussaratHilali

Business Recorder

Penalty of dismissal from service can't be awarded sans probe: SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court ruled that major penalty of dismissal from service cannot be awarded without conducting regular inquiry, or providing opportunity of being heard to a civil servant as it amounts to violation of principles of Natural Justice. It also said that in cases involving public funds extra caution and due care is required to be observed to prove the charge of embezzlement or misappropriation, whereas, proper inquiry needs to be conducted in a fair and transparent manner to ensure that the public funds, so misappropriated, could be retrieved and the civil servant involved in such offence, shall be punished accordingly. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Mussarat Hilali, observed that while hearing an appeal against the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. Brief facts of the case are that District Coordination Officer/ District Collector Mianwali proceeded against the petitioner (Malik Muhammad Ramzan) and awarded punishment of dismissal from service by invoking the provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006 on the charges of fraud and embezzlement of funds committed by the petitioner by increasing the amounts of cheques through forgery after getting them signed from the authorities. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, filed departmental appeal before departmental authorities, which was rejected on 11.11.2016. The petitioner then filed revision petition, which was also dismissed on 02.03.2018. He then filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. However, such appeal was also dismissed on 24.01.2022. Thus, this petition was filed before the apex court. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that he was not provided with an opportunity of being heard. 'I was never served with any show-cause notice nor any regular inquiry was conducted while imposing a major penalty of dismissal from service,' he asserted. Conversely, the Additional Advocate General, Punjab, submitted that the petitioner was duly served with Show-Cause Notice(s) and was given an opportunity of being heard. The court after perusal of facts and examination of record, found that respondents failed to place on record any material or evidence to show that petitioner was ever served with the Show-Cause Notice(s) or was associated by the IO for the purposes of conducting regular inquiry. It further noted that major penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed on the allegations of embezzlement/ misappropriation of funds; however, without confronting the petitioner with any material or evidence, which may support such allegations. It set aside the Tribunal's verdict, and the respondents were directed to re-instate the petitioner into service. However, it remanded the matter to the departmental authority to conduct de novo inquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner while providing him sufficient opportunity of being heard in terms of Sections 9 and 10 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025