Regular inquiry
Regular inquiry legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
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.
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.
Where the absence from duty was admitted, there was no need to hold regular inquiry.
Where the absence from duty was admitted, there was no need to hold regular inquiry.
Major penalty like removal from service on the basis of serious allegation of misconduct can only be imposed after regular inquiry
Only in exceptional circumstances, the regular inquiry can be dispensed with and summary procedure may be followed when there was no factual controversy or the allegations are admitted.
Definition of "misconduct" in S.2(n) in Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 is not exhaustive, however, by applying the rule of ejusdem generis, the allegations of three unsatisfactory PERs for two consecutive years fall in the definition of "inefficiency" under S.2(k) of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 and not under "misconduct" as defined in S.2(n) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006
However, R.4(5) of the Punjab Emergency Leave Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 2007, has introduced this ground as a new ground with major penalty of removal from service
Indeed under R. 3 of the Punjab Emergency Leave Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 2007, the Punjab Emergency Leave Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 2007 are in addition to Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, therefore, this new ground could be introduced in the Punjab Emergency Leave Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 2007, considering sensitive nature of the job, however, other provisions of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, including regular inquiry under Ss.5 & 9 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, cannot be dispensed with.
Where the absence from duty was admitted, there was no need to hold regular inquiry.
Where the absence from duty was admitted, there was no need to hold regular inquiry.
Where the fact of absence from duty was admitted, there was no need for holding of a regular enquiry for that there was no disputed fact involved to be enquired into.
Where the fact of absence from duty was admitted, there was no need for holding of a regular enquiry for that there was no disputed fact involved to be enquired into.
Constitutional petition filed by the employee was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court on the ground that tenure of contract had expired
Validity
Department submitted recommendation for regularization of service of employee
Service of employee was terminated on account of unsatisfactory performance as well as with allegation of misconduct without holding any regular inquiry and opportunity of hearing to the employee
When an employee was going to be terminated on the ground of misconduct which was stigma, it was mandatory to hold regular inquiry
Termination of contract employee whose legitimate right of regularization had been accrued was not tenable
Chief Minister had regularized the services of all the contract employees in BS-1 to 15
Termination of contract of the employee was arbitrary in circumstances
Case of employee would fall within the purview of Art.25 of the Constitution
Authority could not be allowed cherry picking
Impugned order passed by the Single Judge of High Court was set aside
Employee was reinstated in service without back benefits
Department was directed to regularize the employee in his capacity of what post he was holding at the time of termination of service
Intervening period from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement was directed to be counted towards pensionary benefits of employee
Intra-court appeal was allowed in circumstances.
Petitioner-employee was appointed as Senior Medical Officer (Dental) in BS-18 in the University but during probation his service was dispensed with due to unsatisfactory performance
Contention of petitioner-employee was that Syndicate being the competent authority, no adverse order could be passed without its recommendation
Validity
Where nature of the rules governing terms and conditions of service of an employee were non-statutory, constitutional petition against order of Authority was barred
Rules/regulations governing terms and conditions of service of the employee of University were non-statutory
Action taken by the authority could not be considered as arbitrary, capricious or fanciful for exercise of constitutional jurisdiction in the present case
Authority which had power to appoint anybody enjoyed the power to proceed against an appointee under the relevant provisions of law
When services of probationer were terminated on the basis of poor performance then he was not entitled for any show cause notice
No show cause notice was required to be issued prior to proceedings against the petitioner-employee
Employee would acquire certain rights only after successful completion of probation period
Not only remedy of appeal or review but that of revision had also been catered for an aggrieved employee of the University
When remedy of appeal, review or revision had been provided then no one could be allowed to by-pass the same simply for the reason that same was not efficacious
Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed in circumstances.
Petitioner being contract employee was terminated from service and he was held entitled to draw one month pay in lieu of giving one month notice in accordance with terms and conditions of appointment orders
Validity
Petitioner was appointed on contract basis and his services could be terminated by giving one month notice or payment of an amount equal to one month salary in lieu of notice period
Petitioner had been held entitled to draw one month pay in lieu of termination notice
Contract of service did not create any vested right in the appointee so as to make him entitled to be served with notice before termination of contract of his service
Contract of petitioner was terminated without stigmatizing him
Petitioner was given a very safe and honourable exit from service without leveling any allegation against him
If a person was employee on contract basis and terms of employment had provided the manner of termination of his service, same could be terminated in terms thereof
If a person was to be condemned for misconduct then in that event even if he was a contract employee he would be entitled to a fair opportunity to clear his position
Regular inquiry was necessary in case of stigmatized termination
Contract appointment of petitioner had been simply terminated without any allegation of misconduct
No writ could be issued in contractual obligation by the High Court unless contract employment was terminated with any stigma
Petitioner in contractual appointment was not vested with a right to press for his reinstatement into service for the left over period
Where services of an employee were not governed by any statutory rules the principle of "master and servant" would be applicable and constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could not be exercised
Petitioner was not entitled for invoking the constitutional jurisdiction for seeking his reinstatement
Employee of corporation/institution in the absence of violation of law or any statutory rules could not press into service the constitutional jurisdiction or civil jurisdiction for seeking relief for reinstatement in service
Remedy against wrong dismissal or termination of petitioner was only to claim damages
Order of termination of petitioner without any stigma could not be challenged before the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction
Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed in circumstances.
No notice or show-cause notice was given and petitioners were not accorded opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned action
Petitioners were condemned unheard which was against norms of justice and law-Person employed on contract basis or probationer, was entitled to clear his position and there should be regular inquiry in terms of relevant Efficiency and Discipline Rules before condemning for misconduct
Constitutional petition was disposed of with the direction to conduct proper inquiry.
Plaintiffs filed pre-emption suit wherein they submitted agreement between the parties to the suit and prayed for the decision of the same on the basis of settled terms of agreement and in alternative prayed for additional evidence
Factum of execution of settlement was denied by the defendants-respondents and plaintiffs-petitioners moved another application for comparison of signatures and thumb-marks and by means of another application, the agreement purported to have been arrived at in between the parties before a `Jirga' was prayed to be put to the defendant for its admission and in addition to such applications, another application under Art.163 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was also moved for decision of the suit on special oath
Applications were dismissed concurrently
Validity
When application intimating the settlement in between the parties was brought before the court in any suit, then it was incumbent upon the court to satisfy itself as to the execution and existence of compromise and when question arose as to whether or not , there had been a compromise in between the parties, the same had to be decided after regular inquiry by taking evidence and rejection of such application summarily was not proper and refusal to enter into such inquiry would in fact militate against the letter and spirit of the provisions contained in O.XXIII, R.3, C.P.C. as under the said provision of law, recording of compromise was not a formality but a mandatory one, as such, order had been made appealable in terms of O.XLIII, R.1(m) C.P.C.
Courts below had not exercised their jurisdiction vested in them and had committed illegality in dismissing the applications moved by the plaintiffs-petitioners
Order of the Trial Court, as well as, the judgment of the Appellate Court were declared illegal and the same were set aside
Appellate Court before whom application for decision of the suit on the basis of settlement was moved, was directed to hold regular inquiry as to the execution and existence of the compromise in between the parties by granting ample opportunities to both the parties to produce their version and then to decide the same by means of speaking order.
Competent Authority could dispense with holding of inquiry especially when the allegation levelled against the employee had found to be proved on the basis of documentary evidence
Constitutional petition was dismissed.
"Regular inquiry", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124942279
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Regular inquiry"
1987 S C M R 829
MUHAMMAD SALEEM AKHTAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE DIRECTOR, FOOD, PUNJAB LAHORE and another‑‑Respondents
Court: High Court2023 P L C (C
MOZAMMIL IQBAL Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR (HR) PUNJAB EMERGENCY SERVICE, LAHORE and 2 others
Court: Lahore High Court2026 S C M R 576
The SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER), PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAILWAY HEADQUARTER, LAHORE and others — Petitioners Versus Syed QAISER ABBAS — Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2026 P L C (C
The SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER), PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAILWAY HEADQUARTER, LAHORE and others Versus Syed QAISER ABBAS
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2003 S C M R 1110
ABDUL QAYYUM — Petitioner Versus D.G., PROJECT MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION, JS HQ, RAWALPINDI and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2003 P L C (C
ABDUL QAYYUM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus D.G., PROJECT MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION, JS HQ, RAWALPINDI and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2005 P L C (C
MUHAMMAD KHALIQUE KHAN Versus GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN TELECOM REGION-I, HYDERABAD and 3 others
Court: Federal Service Tribunal1995 S C M R 1042
MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Appellant Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary,
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2012 P L C (C
Mst. SAJIDA SHAIKH Versus DEPUTY POST MASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN SINDH CIRCLE POSTAL SERVICES, HYDERABAD and others
Court: Federal Service Tribunal2007 P L C (C
ABDUL SATTAR Versus PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and 2 others
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan