Shafique Khushnood Vs MS General Hospital etc.

Stereo. H C J D A 38 Judgment Sheet

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P. No.6323 of 2026

Shafique Khushnood.

Vs.

Medical Superintendent, Lahore General Hospital Lahore and two others.

JUDGMENT

Date of Hearing 20.5.2026 Petitioner by M/s Sardar Ali Kamboh and Rai Riaz Ahmad Kharal, Advocates.

Respondents by Ch. Awais Ahmad Qazi, Addl. Advocate General & Mr. Faisal Nawaz, Legal Advisor for respondents.

MALIK MUHAMMAD AWAIS KHALID, J. The

petitioner has filed instant constitutional petition with the following prayer:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accepted and the impugned office order No.PF/ 4685864/LGH dated 24.7.2024 issued by the respondent No.2/Addl: Medical Superintendent, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore and impugned order No.PF/63503 dated 19.9.2024 passed by respondent No.1/Medical Superintendent, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore may kindly be set aside and the petitioner may graciously be reinstated in the service with all back benefits, in the interest of justice.

2.Succinctly, the facts of the case are that petitioner was serving as Security Guard (BS- 01/Permanent Basis) BOM created post in Lahore General Hospital, Lahore and has been performing his duties honestly and diligently. Thereafter, show cause notice

No.PF/45035/LGH dated 15.7.2024 was issued to the petitioner by respondent No.2 while the inquiry was dispensed with. The petitioner submitted reply wherein he denied the allegations leveled against him but respondent No.2 without conducting regular inquiry and providing opportunity of hearing, terminated his service vide order dated 24.7.2024. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred departmental appeal before respondent No.1 which was dismissed vide order dated 19.9.2024. The appeal filed by the petitioner before Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, was dismissed being not appropriate forum vide order dated 13.1.2026. Hence, this writ petition.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned orders have been passed unlawfully and without mentioning any reason therein by the respondents; the word termination is alien to law; conducting of regular inquiry was dispensed with by the respondent-department against Article 10A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 (The Constitution).

4.Learned Law Officer and learned Legal Advisor for respondent-department have opposed the petition on the ground that impugned orders have been passed quite in accordance with law and justifiable reasons.

5.Arguments heard. Record perused.

6.The allegation leveled against the petitioner was that he was caught red handed while stealing A.C. pipes in

ortho ward of Lahore General Hospital, Lahore on 01.5.2024 at 4:30 A.M. and remained absent from duty w.e.f. 15.6.2024 to 22.7.2024. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under section 7(b) read with Sections 5(1)(a) of Punjab Employees Efficiency Discipline & Accountability Act, 2006 (the Act) with the direction to submit reply. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice with the contention that at about 4:30 a.m. night security supervisor called him that towards ortho ward someone was cutting A.C. pipe, he visited the spot but no body was found there; he was not absent from duty. Learned counsel for the petitioner took the stance that inquiry against the petitioner was dispensed with without mentioning any reason. Perusal of show cause notice depicts that no cogent and justifiable reason has been enunciated therein for dispensing with inquiry.

Relevant portion is reproduced as under:- “AND WHEREAS, the undersigned is of the opinion that it is not necessary to hold an inquiry into the matter in view of the provision contained in section 5(1)(a) of the PEEDA Act 2006, therefore, proposed to proceed against you under Section 7(b) read with section 5(1)(a) of PEEDA Act, 2006 may not be imposed upon you.”

On the face of it, no reason has been mentioned by the competent authority in the show cause notice to dispense with the inquiry but has proceeded against the petitioner only on the basis of opinion which is unwarranted under law. With regard to absence of the petitioner, learned

counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of attendance register for the months of June and July 2024 which is apparently showing attendance of the petitioner on most of the dates. Complaint was filed against the petitioner by night supervisor Rana Zeeshan on the pretext that there was theft of A.C. pipe of ortho ward of the hospital on 1.5.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that incident took place on 1.5.2024 but show cause notice was issued against the petitioner on 15.7.2024 with the delay of more than two months. It is important to note when the petitioner has denied the allegations levelled against him, right of confrontation is provided under Articles 4 & 10A of the Constitution and further u/s 10 of the Act, right of cross-examination is available to the petitioner to prove his innocence but denied arbitrarily. Authenticity or otherwise of the disputed facts cannot be considered without conducting a fair regular inquiry. Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Arbab and others Vs. Province of Sindh through Secretary Health Department and others (2026 SCMR 300) and The Vice-President (Admin.), National Bank of Pakistan and others Vs. Basharat Ali and others (1996 SCMR 201) held that paramount object of framing of the rules and enactment to provide a fair and reasonable opportunity to an employee to defend himself against the charge brought against him by his employer in order to ensure adherence of the principles of natural justice. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Saad Salam Ansari Vs. Chief Justice of Sindh High Court, Karachi through Registrar (2007 SCMR 1726) held as under:-

“The appellant has been subjected to a major penalty terminating his service prematurely. The spirit of the law namely PEEDA Act, 2006 is that such terminal punitive action against a civil servant should be taken after an inquiry has been conducted. In the present case, whether the appellant had a satisfactory explanation for his absence for the period mentioned in the show-cause-notice has not been attended by the respondents. It is a matter upon which an opportunity to record evidence ought to have been granted. Likewise, the availability of documentary evidence, if any, with the respondents that justified dispensation of an inquiry ought to have been disclosed/confronted to the appellant. In the absence thereof, we find that the impugned punishment has been imposed upon the appellant without complying with the provisions of the law.”

The allegation of mis-conduct levelled against the delinquent could not be proved without conducting regular inquiry especially when major penalty is going to be imposed. The purpose for initiation of disciplinary proceeding is to find out whether charges of misconduct are proved or not and in case his guilt is established, what action should be taken against him under the applicable rules which may include the imposition of penalties minor or major. Reliance is placed on the case of Chief Engineer, Gujranwala Electric Power Company (GEPCO) Gujranwala Vs.

Khalid Mehmood and others (2023 SCMR 291) wherein it has been held as under:-

“The allegations of dishonesty, corruption and negligence levelled against the respondent No.1 could not be proved without regular inquiry. The astuteness of triggering of disciplinary proceedings by the employer is to find out whether the charges of misconduct levelled against the delinquent are proved or not and, in case his guilt is established, what action should be taken against him under the applicable Service laws which may include the imposition of minor or major penalties. There is no rigid or definitive rule that in each and every case after issuing show cause notice a regular inquiry should be conducted, but if the department aspires to dispense with the regular inquiry due to some compelling circumstances or exigency, then justifiable reasons should be assigned in writing before dispensing with the regular inquiry. No doubt if a charge is set up or stems from admitted documents, no full-fledged regular inquiry is obligatory, but if the allegations are based on disputed questions of facts, then obviously the employee cannot be denied a right of regular inquiry, specifically where the allegations cannot be resolved without leading evidence and providing a fair opportunity to the parties to cross- examine the witnesses.”

Further reliance can safely be placed on the case of Naseeb Khan Vs. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore and another (2008 SCMR 1369) wherein it has been observed as follows:- “In case of imposing a major penalty, the principle of natural justice requires that a regular enquiry is to be conducted in the matter and opportunity of defence and personal hearing is to be provided to the civil servant proceeded against as held by this Court in the case of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Ms. Shaista Naheed 2004 SCMR 316 and Inspector-General of Police, Karachi and 2 others v. Shafqat Mehmood 2003 SCMR

6.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that petitioner has been condemned unheard and major penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed upon him

without adopting the required and mandatory procedure, resulting in manifest injustice.”

The allegations levelled in the show cause notice issued against the petitioner on the face of it could not be proved against the petitioner without proper inquiry and without providing an opportunity to adduce evidence not only to the complainant but also to the delinquent employee enabling him to defend against the charges, produce witness in order to prove his innocence as well as to avail the right to cross-examine the witnesses produced against him.

7.It is also pertinent to mention that in this matter the competent authority imposed major penalty of termination from service upon the petitioner whereas disciplinary proceedings were initiated under the Act and show cause notice was also issued under the said Act. The impugned order of the termination of the petitioner from service is alien to the Act. The Section 4 of the Act describes the penalties which is reproduced as under:-

“4. Penalties.- (1) The competent authority may, notwithstanding anything contained in any law or the terms and conditions of service of the accused, by an order in writing, impose one or more of the following penalties, namely:-

a) Minor penalties-

(i)censure;

(ii)withholding of increment or increments, for a specific period, subject to a maximum of five years;

(iii)(iii) fine not exceeding basic pay of one month;

(iv)(iv) reduction to a lower stage or stages in pay scale, subject to a maximum of five stages; and

(v)withholding of promotion for a specific period, subject to a maximum of five years; provided that this period shall be counted from the date when a person junior to the accused is considered for promotion and is promoted on regular basis for the first time;

(b)Major penalties –

(i)recovery from pay, pension or any other amount payable to the accused, the whole or a part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government or the organization in which he was employed, and if the amount due from any such person cannot be wholly recovered from the pay, pension or any other amount payable to him, such amount shall be recovered under the law for the time being in force;

(ii)reduction to a lower post and pay scale from the substantive or regular post for a specific period subject to a maximum of five years;

(iii)forfeiture of past service for a specific period subject to a maximum of five years;

(iv)compulsory retirement;

(v)removal from service; and (vi) dismissal from service; and (c) Penalties after retirement-

(i)withholding of pension or any part thereof; (ii) withdrawing of pension or any part thereof; and (iii) recovery from pension or any other amount payable to the accused, of pecuniary loss caused to Government or the organization in which he was employed, and if the amount due from any such person cannot be wholly recovered from the pension or any other amount payable to him, such amount shall be recovered under the law for the time being in force.

(ii)Dismissal from service under this Act shall disqualify the employee for future

employment under the Government or under any organization to which the provisions of this Act apply.

PEEDA Act, 2006

(iii)Any penalty under this Act shall not absolve an employee or accused from liability to any punishment to which he may be liable for an offence, under any law, committed by him while in service.

Perusal of section ibid reveals that word ‘termination’ is not included in the Act rather, word dismiss, remove or compulsory retirement has been provided. The imposition of major penalty of ‘termination from service’ is void being absent in the list provided by the Act, as show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under section 7 of the Act.

8.The principles of natural justice require that delinquent should be given fair opportunity to contest charges levelled against him before he is found guilty.

No person is unjustly penalized without being given opportunity to present his complete defence, therefore, impugned orders are against the principle of due process and transparency. Reliance is placed on the case of The Government of Balochistan, through Secretary Energy Department, Quetta and another Vs.

Muhammad Yasir (2025 SCMR 367) wherein it has been observed as follows:

“This action was in sheer contravention of Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution"), and lacked due process of law. To enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with the

law is a basic fundamental right of every citizen within the precincts ad confines of Article 4 of the Constitution which, in fact, assimilates the doctrine of equal protection of law and accentuates that no action detrimental to life and liberty can be taken without due process.”

Reliance is also placed on the case of Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary, Education Department Peshawar and others Vs. Aurangzeb (Ex-Primary School Head Teacher) GPS Wanna Khel Tehsil Takhtbhai District Mardan (deceased through L.Rs. (2025 SCMR 40) wherein it has been held as under:- “In our considered view, the allegations jotted down in the show cause notice, on the face of it, could not be proved without proper inquiry and without providing an opportunity to adduce evidence not only to the complainants but also to the delinquent employee for him to be able to defend himself against the charges, produce witnesses, if any, to prove his innocence, as well as avail the right to cross-examine the witnesses adducing against him. On the contrary, the competent authority imposed the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service upon the delinquent employee on the basis of a show cause notice alone, without following the principle of natural justice and due process enunciated under the law.”

The appellate authority also passed the impugned order in mechanical manner hence arbitrary in nature.

Respondents in a stereotype and perfunctory manner proceeded against the petitioner and imposed him major penalty of termination from service which is not warranted under law. While dispensing with the regular

inquiry, logical reasons must be mentioned by the competent authority but in this case inquiry has been dispensed with in a whimsical manner. The punishment awarded to the petitioner is in violation of Articles 4 & 10-A of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Act. The impugned orders suffer from illegality hence, calling for interference by this Court.

9.As a sequel of above discussion, impugned orders are set aside and the petitioner is reinstated into service. The competent authority may order to conduct a regular inquiry on the allegations leveled against the petitioner, under law and is directed to decide the issue of back benefits of the petitioner.

10.The upshot of above discussion, instant writ petition is partly allowed in above terms.

(Malik Muhammad Awais Khalid)

JUDGE

Approved for reporting.

Judge Naeem*