Abdul Hameed Khan VS Federation of Pakistan etc

Form No: HCJD/C-121

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

W.P.No. 4639/2025

Abdul Hameed Khan Versus Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Islamabad and others

Petitioner by: Mr. Matloob Hussain Malik, Advocate.

Respondents by: Mr. Imran Farooq, AAG.

Mr. Sultan Hayat Ranjha, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

Dates of Hearing: 15.09.2026.

JUDGMENT

UMAIR MAJEED MALIK, J: This writ petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (“Constitution”), calls in question the Office Order dated 29.07.2025 (“Termination Order”), whereby the petitioner's services were terminated with immediate effect on the allegation of submitting a fake Master of Arts degree in Political Science (“M.A. degree”) at the time of his initial employment.

2.Brief facts of the case, as per the memorandum of the petition, are that the petitioner joined respondent No.3, Pakistan Television Corporation (“PTV”), as a Resource Person (News Monitor/Group-4) vide appointment letter dated 27.09.2000, and was subsequently promoted to Group-5 in 2013, Group-6 (Senior News Monitor) in 2016,

and Group-7 (Senior Monitoring Officer) thereafter. On 03.12.2020, he was served a charge sheet alleging that he had furnished, at the time of his induction, a “Pass” result intimation for the M.A. degree, which the University of the Punjab had in fact declared “Fail”. The petitioner's stance was that the qualification prescribed for his post at the time of his appointment was graduation (B.A.), not a Master's degree. In the ensuing inquiry, he was found “partially guilty”, and the competent authority, taking a lenient view, imposed the minor penalty of withholding one increment, vide Office Order dated 02.06.2023. Later, on the same allegation, the petitioner's services were terminated vide the Termination Order. His representations to the Managing Director, PTV, have not been responded to. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition against the impugned Termination Order giving rise to the instant petition.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was first penalized with withholding of one increment for a period of one year, and was later, on the very same charge, awarded the major penalty of termination, without any fresh show-cause notice, charge sheet, or inquiry; that this offends the principle against double jeopardy, under which a person cannot be punished twice for the same misconduct; and that, in any event, the prescribed qualification for the petitioner's post at the time of his appointment in 2000 was graduation, rendering the allegation of a fake M.A. degree irrelevant. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on 2000 PLC (CS) 467, 1996 SCMR 1185, and 1984 SCMR 286.

4.Conversely, learned AAG and learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 argued that the petitioner was inducted on the basis of a B.A.

degree, but had represented at the time of joining that his Master's degree result was awaited, and had subsequently submitted a form together with a copy of an M.A. (Political Science) degree in second division from the University of the Punjab, which, upon verification, was found to be fake. It has been argued that the petitioner's services were terminated in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Musa v. Habib Bank Limited (2012 SCMR 979), and that the services of all fake-degree holders identified within the organization have similarly been terminated.

5.I have heard the respective arguments of the parties and perused the record with their abled assistance.

6.The record shows that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the allegation that he had submitted a “Pass” result intimation for his M.A. degree at induction, which was in fact “Fail”. He was charge-sheeted, found “partially guilty” in the inquiry, and, vide Office Order dated 02.06.2023, penalized with withholding of one increment for one year. Two years later, on the same charge, he was served the impugned Termination Order. The competent authority has thus penalized the petitioner twice for the same charge of misconduct, contrary to the settled principle “Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una Et Eadem Causa”, that no one ought to be vexed twice for one and the same cause. This principle underlies both the rule against double jeopardy, that no person should be tried and punished twice for the same

offence, and the rule of res judicata, that a matter once adjudicated cannot be re-agitated. Once the competent authority of PTV had found the petitioner “partially guilty” and imposed the penalty of withholding one increment in the earlier disciplinary proceedings, it possessed no lawful authority to subsequently substitute that finding with one of “guilty” and impose penalty of “termination from service” on the very same charge. In this respect, reliance is placed on the reported cases Sohail Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary of Interior Ministry and others (2022 SCMR 1387), The Director General (Field), Agricultural Department, Lahore v. Haji Abdul Rehman (1989 SCMR 1224), Saleem Ahmad v. Government of Khyber Pakhtun Khwa (2023 PLC (C.S.) 1043 and unreported judgment of this Court in identical case, W.P.No.3081 of 2025, Faisal Ejaz v. Federation of Pakistan and others. Upon completion of the earlier inquiry and imposition of penalty, the matter attained finality as a closed and past transaction, and respondents No.2 to 4 therefore, had no lawful authority to reopen it and impose the penalty of Termination from service on the same charge. Nor does the record disclose that the Termination Order was passed in exercise of any power of review, revision, or enhancement conferred by the applicable service regulations; having elected to inquire into the allegation and conclude the proceedings with a penalty, any subsequent enhancement had to be founded upon a legally conferred power, exercised in accordance with law, and preceded by notice, none of which occurred here. The impugned Termination Order, issued without any show-cause notice,

charge sheet, or inquiry, thus also violates the petitioner's inalienable right to be dealt with in accordance with law under Article 4 of the Constitution, and his fundament right to a fair trial and due process under Article 10-A.

7.The petitioner has, in effect, been punished twice for the same charge, once vide Office Order dated 02.03.2023 and again vide impugned Termination Order dated 29.07.2025. Double punishment for the same charge is not permissible under the law. The concluded disciplinary proceedings could not be reopened without notice, without a fresh charge sheet and without any identified legal authority for reopening a concluded matter. The impugned order is, therefore, held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

8.For the reasons recorded above, the instant petition is allowed.

Consequently, the Impugned Office Order HP/N&CA/PF/10525, dated 29.07.2025 is declared illegal, void ab initio and non-est.

(UMAIR MAJEED MALIK)

JUDGE

Announced in open Court on __/09/2026.

JUDGE

Shafqat*/