2026 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SAJJAD HUSSAIN SINDHAR, CHAIRMAN.

Through this consolidated judgment, it is intended to decide the above captioned as well as the following 51 appeals, because the questions of law and facts are common in all of them:- 1) Muhammad Hussain son of Suleman, resident of Basti Qaimwala, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang (Appeal No.3249/2023). 2) Mian Muhammad Naeem son of Mian Fida Hussain, resident of Near Talairi Bypass, House No.110, Hans Colony, Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3250/2023). 3) Sajid Abbas son of Suleman, resident of Basti Qaim Wala, Shorkot, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang (Appeal No.3251/2023). 4) Muhammad Yahya son of Muhammad Siddique, resident of Multan Road, Mohallah Talairi, Canal Colony, Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3252/2023). 5) Ashiq Hussain son of Akbar Khan, resident of Chak No.5 Gaggh, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang (Appeal No.3253/2023). 6) Shoaib Hussain son of Riaz Hussain Khan, resident of Mouza Talhairi, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3254/2023). 7) Muhammad Amjad Kareem son of Abdul Kareem, resident of Mouza Dolat Pur Mondka, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3255/2023) 8) Muneer Ahmad son of Piran Ditta, resident of H.No. 671, St.No. 2, Mohallah Shadab Colony, Multan (Appeal No.3256/2023) 9) Muhammad Imran son of Nazeer Ahmad, resident of 4-Ghagh, Tehad Shorkot, District Jhung (Appeal No.3257/2023) 10) Rashid Hussain son of Khadim Hussain, resident of Mouza Thatha Siala, Khan Pur Baggu Sher, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3258/2023) 11) Shahid Hussain son of Mureed Hussain, resident of Near Talahiri Canal Colony, Mohallah Roshan Abad, Muzaffargarh (Appeal No. 3259/2023). 12) Muhammad Ramzan son of Haqnawaz resident of Basti Ahmad Khan Wali, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3260/2023) 13) Abid Hussain son of Mohammad Aalam, resident of Chah Qureshi Wala, Mouza Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.32561/2023). 14) Muhammad Rashid son of Nazar Hussain, resident of Chah Qureshi Wala, P.O Khas Talheeri, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No. 3262/2023). 15) Mohammad Naeem son of Mohammad Sadiq, resident of Chah Kunday Wala, Shorkot City, District Jhang (Appeal No.3263/2023).

16. Muhammad Iqbal son of Abdul Maalik resident of Chak No.13-D, Abdul Hakeem, Tehsil Kabirwala, District Khanewal (Appeal No.3264/2023)

17. Muhammad Ramzan son of Gul Muhammad, resident of Chah Sandeelay Wala, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3265/2023). 18). Mohammad Ramzan son of Ameer, resident of Chah Pull Wala, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang (Appeal No.3266/2023). 19) Mohammad Asif son of Abdul Rehman, resident of Chak No.16 Gaggh, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang (Appeal No.3267/2023). 20) Muhammad Ishaq son of Ibrahim resident of Khoi Sinawan, Basti Ghulam Ali Gharbi, Sultan Colony Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3268/2023). 21) Muhammad Umair Saleem son of Muhammad Saleem, resident of Chak Malik Muzaffargarh City, District Muzaffargarh (Appeal Wala, No.3269/2023). 22) Abdul Hanan son of Malik Javaid, resident of Chah Qureshi Wala, P.O. Khas Talheeri, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3270/2023). 23) Ghulam Abbas son of Laal Khan, resident of H.No.942, Mohallah People Wala, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3271/2023). 24) Mohammad Ramzan son of Sarang, resident of Azad Pur Khamana Wala, Chak No.3 Gaggh, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang (Appeal No.3272/2023). 25) Iftikhar Hussain son of Mukhtar Hussain, resident of Basti Qureshi Wala, Talairi, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3273/2023). 26) Sikandar Abbas son of Nadeem Abbas, resident of Ghareeb Shah, Darbar, Mohallah Hans Colony, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3274/2023). 27) Khalid Shahzad son of Ashiq Mohammad, resident of Mohallah Ghaziabad, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3275/2023). 28) Muhammad Nadeem son of Zulfiqar, resident of Chak No.17 Gaggh, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang (Appeal No.3276/2023). 29) Abid Hussain son of Muhammad Hussain, resident of Mouza Talheeri, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3277/2023). 30) Muhammad Amjad son of Abdul Majeed, resident of Bsati Bahar Wala, Dolat Wahi, P.O. Jatoi, District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3278/2023). 31) Mohammad Abid son of Mohammad Nawaz resident of Basti Luk Wala Talairi and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3279/2023). 32) Mohammad Zubair Saleem son of Mohammad Saleem, resident of Chah Malik Wala, Mouza Talairi, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No. 3280/2023). 33) Shehzad Akhtar son of Abdul Rasheed resident of Mauza Rohari, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3281/2023). 34) Khalid Hussain son of Muhammad Aalam, resident of Qureshi Wala, Mouza Talheers, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3282/2023). 35) Allah Ditta son of Waryam, resident of Shorkat, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang (Appeal No.3283/2023) 36) Muhammad Jahangir son of Abdul Qayum, resident of Chah Qureshi Wala, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No. 3284/2023) 37) Mohammad Sarwar son of Jan Mohammad, resident of Chak No. Gaggh, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang (Appeal No.3285/2023) 38) Ahad Ali son of Muhammad Siddique, resident of Mouza Mohallah Talairi Canal Golony Multan Road, Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3286/2023). 39) Kashif Hussain son of Mohammad Aalam, resident of Chah Qureshi Wala, Mousa Talairi, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3287/2023) 40) Naveed Aalam son of Noor Aalam, resident of H. No.D-69, Mohallah Sarkar Colony Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3288/2023). 41) Nadir Hussain son of Allah Bakhah, resident of Chah Lukh Wala, Mouzaa Talair, Tehsil and District Muzaffargar (Appeal No.3289/2023). 42) Nazeer Ahmad son of Muhammad Hussain, resident of House No.331, Siddiq Abad, Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3290/2023). 43) Mazhar Abbas son of Safdar Abbas, resident of Chah Qureshi Wala P.O Khas Talheeri, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3291/2023). 44) Safdar Hussain son of Mukhtiar Hussain, resident of House No. 17-D, Mohallah Wapda Colony, Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3292/2023) 45) Nazar Mohammad son of Mohammad Nawaz, resident of Khanewal (Appeal No. 3293/2023). 46) Mohammad Waseem son of Allah Ditta, resident of Chah Sardar Khan Wala, Mouza Talairi, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No. 3294/2023). 47) Zulfiqar son of Rab Nawaz, resident of Chak No. 17 Gaggh, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang (Appeal No.3295/2023). 48) Mohammad Afzal son of Mukhtiar Hussain, resident of H.No. 17-D, Mohallah Wapda Colony, Muzaffargarh (Appeal No. 3296/2023). 49) Zaffar Abbas son of Safdar Hussain, resident of Chah Qureshi Wala, P.O Khas Talheeri, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3297/2023). 50) Mohammad Asif son of Abdul Ghaffar, resident of Basti Ganwaan, Mouza Widad, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh, Tube-well Operator Muzaffargarh Canal Division, Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3298/2023). 51) Muhammad Safdar son of Ameer Bakhah, resident of Roshan Abad, Talahiri, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh (Appeal No.3299/2023).

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants were initially appointed as work-charge employees in the Store and Workshop Division, Muzaffargarh. After serving for several years, they pursued legal remedies for their regularization of services, which culminated in favourable decisions by the Punjab Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, directing the regularization of their services. In compliance thereof, the department issued formal regularization orders dated 03.08.2016. Following an administrative restructuring, the appellants were inducted into Muzaffargarh Canal Division, where they continued to perform their duties without interruption or any adverse entries in their service records. However, vide impugned orders dated 03.06.2021, the appellants were abruptly terminated through impugned orders, purportedly on the grounds of administrative directives and a departmental conclusion that their initial appointments were "bogus." Significantly, the impugned termination orders were issued without affording the appellants any opportunity of hearing, and without initiating proceedings under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA Act). No show-cause notices, charge-sheets, or inquiries were conducted-thereby violating the foundational requirements of due process and fair disciplinary action. Aggrieved, the appellants submitted departmental appeals, which remained pending without adjudication. Consequently, they approached the Hon ble Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which, vide orders dated 03.10.2022 and 17-11.2022, directed the competent appellate authority to decide the pending appeals expeditiously. In purported compliance, the Superintending Engineer passed orders dated 31.01.2023 and 22.6.2023 declining to decide the matter on the ground that a related issue was sub judice before a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble High Court.

3. At the very outset, learned Deputy District Attorney, appearing on behalf of the respondent department and assisted by departmental representatives, raised a preliminary objection assailing the maintainability of the instant service appeals. It was contended that the appellants do not fall within the ambit of "civil servants" as defined in Section 2 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, their initial appointments having been made on a work-charge basis, which is an arrangement characterized by its non-regular, non-permanent nature, and lacking the attributes of a statutory appointment. It was further submitted that even after the appellants' purported regularization, they continued to retain the status of workmen or daily-wage employees, rather than acquiring the statutory status contemplated under the Act. The learned Deputy District Attorney emphasized that the appellants were neither appointed pursuant to a competitive selection process nor in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules sanctioned under law. Consequently, it was argued that their subsequent regularization, being administrative in nature, did not rectify the original procedural infirmities nor confer upon them the status of civil servants ex post facto. To fortify this contention, reliance was placed on the principle that mere continuity in service or disbursement of salary from the public exchequer is not determinative of one's status as a civil servant. Accordingly, it was urged that the appellants, not being civil servants within the meaning of the 1974 Act, are not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974.

4. Regarding merits of the case, the learned Deputy District Attorney contended that the appellants were among a large number of individuals who had allegedly benefited from fraudulent or irregular regularizations. It was submitted that, pursuant to internal departmental audits and a high-level inquiry, extensive irregularities were unearthed in the appointment and regularization process. A committee constituted by the Secretary, Irrigation Department, reportedly found that several appointments, including those of the appellants, had been made in contravention of applicable rules and procedures, and were, in effect, fabricated or unauthorized. Reference was made to the departmental directive dated 28-5-2021 issued by the Secretary, Irrigation, which was described as a policy decision based on the committee s findings. The said directive formed the foundational basis for the impugned termination order dated 3-6-2021, which were passed as part of the broader administrative restructuring initiative aimed at rectifying irregularities within the department. It was further contended that certain pivotal questions relating to the validity of the regularizations including the jurisdiction exercised by the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal are currently sub judice before a Large Bench of the Hon ble Lahore High Court. In view of the pendency of those proceedings, it was urged that adjudication of the instant service appeals would be premature and potentially inconsistent with the authoritative pronouncement expected from the High Court. Accordingly, dismissal of the present appeals was prayed for.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants, in rebuttal to the objection over maintainability, submitted that although the appellants were initially appointed on a work-charge basis, their status underwent a material and lawful transformation upon regularization through administrative orders issued pursuant to binding directions of competent judicial fora. It was contended that the regularization order dated 3-8-2016 was not a mere act of executive benevolence, but rather a legal obligation emanating from decisions of the Labour Court, subsequently upheld by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, both of which attained finality. Learned counsel further argued that following their regularization, the appellants were absorbed against duly sanctioned posts and were thereafter reflected on the department s official service rolls. Their names were entered into the regular establishment, and their salaries were routed through the District Accounts Office. Particular emphasis was placed on the fact that the merger of the erstwhile Store and Workshop Division into the Muzaffargarh Canal Division led to the institutional absorption of the appellants into a regular cadre, thereby clothing them with the legal status of civil servants as contemplated under Section 2 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974.

6. Regarding merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the impugned termination orders were passed in clear violation of the mandatory procedural safeguards enshrined in the provisions of PEEDA Act, 2006. It was submitted that the appellants were condemned unheard, no show-cause notices were issued, no formal charge sheets were served, no departmental inquiry was initiated, and no opportunity of personal hearing or defence was afforded. Such procedural omissions, it was argued, constitute a manifest breach not only of statutory obligations but also of the fundamental principles of natural justice and the appellants' constitutionally protected right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Learned Counsel further submitted that the appellants' services had been regularized through a transparent process undertaken in compliance with binding judicial directives, and their appointments had been validated through orders passed by competent forums of law. The subsequent allegations of irregularity, even if entertained, could not retroactively invalidate the lawful regularization, nor justify summary termination without due process. It was forcefully argued that generalized or group allegations of fraudulent appointments cannot displace the legal requirement of individualized inquiry and specific findings of misconduct against each employee. The departmental reports or committee findings relied upon by the respondents were neither preceded by notice to the appellants nor conducted in accordance with any legally sanctioned procedure. The appellants were not allowed to participate in the process, nor granted any opportunity to confront evidence or cross-examine witnesses, thereby rendering the entire exercise legally unsustainable. In support of these submissions, reliance was placed on the binding precedent reported as 2020 PLC (C.S.) 1291, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that dismissal from service without affording an inquiry or hearing is nullity in the eyes of law, and violative of both statutory discipline and constitutional due process.

7. Arguments heard and record perused.

8. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent department challenging the maintainability of these appeals on the ground that the appellants were initially appointed as workcharge employees and therefore fall outside the definition of civil servant under Section 2(1)(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. It is contended that, owing to the non-statutory nature of their initial appointments, the appellants lack the locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The objection, though formally advanced, is devoid of legal merit and cannot be sustained. Undisputedly, the appellants were initially inducted into government service on work-charge basis. However, the record unequivocally establishes that their services were regularized by the competent authority through a formal order dated 03.08.2016, issued pursuant to decisions rendered by the Punjab Labour Court and affirmed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which attained finality and were binding upon the department. Following such regularization, the appellants have been continuously serving against duly sanctioned posts within the regular establishment of the department. Their remunerations were disbursed through the District Accounts Office; they have been assigned formal service numbers; they operated within the official command and control structure; and they were governed by the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. These factors collectively affirm their integration into the statutory framework governing civil servants. It is now settled jurisprudence that regularization of service by a competent authority, whether pursuant to judicial direction or lawful administrative discretion, alters the legal character of employment, conferring upon the employee the status of a civil servant. It is settled principle of law that once an employee is regularized, he or she ceases to be a cotractual, contingent, or ad hoc worker, and becomes entitled to the full breadth of statutory protections available under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. In determining whether an individual qualifies as a "civil servant" under Section 2 of the Act, the courts have consistently looked beyond the initial form of appointment to the substance of the service relationship. The criteria include: (i) holding a post in connection with the affairs of the Province; (ii) serving under an organization governed by provincial law; (iii) receiving remuneration from the public exchequer through a sanctioned budget; and (iv) being subject to the hierarchical control and service rules of a government department. The appellants obviously satisfy each of these conditions. Significantly, there is no material on record indicating that the regularization of the appellants was ever annulled, withdrawn, or declared void by any competent authority. In the absence of such a determination, a presumption of legality attaches to their regularized status. Moreover, the departmental orders impugned in these appeals were issued by authorities exercising powers under the Punjab Civil Servants Rules, further affirming that the appellants were treated as civil servants in administrative practice.

9. For the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that the appellants, having been lawfully regularized and absorbed against sanctioned posts, have acquired the status of civil servants within the meaning of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The preliminary objection is accordingly overruled. The appeals are held to be maintainable, and the Tribunal proceeds to adjudicate the matter on merits.

10. Upon consideration of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Deputy District Attorney representing the respondent department, and upon a thorough examination of the record, this Tribunal finds itself constrained to conclude that the impugned disciplinary action is tainted with grave legal and procedural infirmities, rendering it unsustainable in law. The facts of the case, as borne out from the record, reveal that the appellants were initially appointed as work-charge employees in the Store and Workshop Division, Muzaffargarh, and were subsequently regularized through a departmental order dated 03.08.2016 in compliance with final and binding decisions rendered by the Punjab Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal. They continued to discharge their duties thereafter without adverse service entries or disciplinary blemishes. However, on 03.06.2021, the appellants were summarily terminated through cyclostyled orders, which referred to a departmental directive alleging large-scale irregularities in appointments. These termination orders were issued without the issuance of show-cause notices, without the framing of precise charges, and without initiation of any formal inquiry under PEEDA Act, 2006. No individualized determination of liability was made. Their statutory departmental appeals were subsequently declined on the ground that related matters were pending adjudication before a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court. It is significant to note, however, that no stay order or injunctive relief was ever produced before this Tribunal to support the non-decision of the appellants' appeals. The learned District Attorney, in defence of the impugned orders, relied on internal audit reports and the findings of fact-finding committees, and particularly a directive issued by the Secretary Irrigation on 28.05.2021, which allegedly disclosed widespread irregularities in the appointment process. However, it is well settled that disciplinary proceedings cannot be sustained on the basis of generalized administrative conclusions or institutional suspicion in the absence of individualized inquiry and concrete evidence. The Tribunal proceeds to record the following specific findings

11. The PEEDA Act, 2006 provides a mandatory procedural framework for imposing disciplinary penalties on civil servants. The Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (PEEDA Act) 2006 mandates the issuance of a charge sheet, appointment of an impartial inquiry officer, the right to defend against allegations, and issuance of a speaking order grounded in evidence. In the instant case, none of these statutory safeguards were observed. The appellants were not served with any charge sheet, no inquiry officer was appointed, and no formal inquiry was conducted. The omission to comply with these mandatory procedural requirements constitutes a fatal illegality and renders the entire proceedings null and void. Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan enshrines the right to a fair trial and due process as an inviolable fundamental right.

12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Tribunal finds that the impugned disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by serious violations of provisions, constitutional guarantees, and principles of natural justice. Without statutory entering into the merits of the underlying allegations, and solely to ensure compliance with due process all the above captioned appeals are allowed and the impugned orders dated 03.06.2021, 31.01.2023 and 22.06.2023 are set aside. The appellants are reinstated into service and the matter is remanded to the competent authority to conduct denovo inquiry proceedings, strictly in accordance with law. MQ/2/PST Appeals allowed.