Charge of misconduct

2026 PLC(CS) 169 PUNJAB-SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

S.5Judicial Officers' Protection Act (XVIII of 1850), S. 1Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 75Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, R.3Service appealJudicial OfficerCharge of misconduct

Granting of post arrest bail on the basis of fake report of Chemical Examiner in deviation of prescribed procedure for Judicial Officers

Effect

Imposition of penalty of dismissal from service

Protection against inadvertent mistakes in judicial acts/order

Scope

Contention of the appellant was that no penalty could be imposed upon him for the reasons that he had been exonerated by the Hearing Officer and being judicial officer he was constitutionally and legally protected for judicially committed inadvertent mistake

Validity

Appellant cross-examined the Investigating Officer (I.O) during the inquiry and suggestions put by him to the I.O. had established that the appellant was hand in glove with the accused of the case

Appellant had privately been briefed by the said accused

Findings of the Hearing Officer qua exoneration of the appellant rest the premises that fake report was placed on the record by the I.O. and as such, there was no fault on the part of the appellant but the said findings were not supported by the record, as well as by the proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer because evidence/documents brought on the record during the inquiry had not been considered and properly appreciated by the Hearing Officer, thus, the Authority imposed major penalty of dismissal from service upon the appellant

Three elements had conjoined i.e. the appellant passed a judicial order in deviation of prescribed procedure in the Circular and express mandate of CNSA; the appellant passed judicial order with mala fide intent for extraneous considerations which was proved on record in terms that the appellant was in close contact with the accused persons, who were beneficiary of bail granting order and the appellant had acquired a general reputation of being corrupt

Such elements taken together proved the charge against the appellant and swayed the authority to impose the major penalty of dismissal from service upon him

Principle of according protection to judicial orders is well entrenched in our jurisprudence provided they are passed in good faith without an element of mala fide, however, there is no concept of complete and absolute immunity if extraneous considerations are vividly established

Service appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2018 PLC(CS) 1092 PUNJAB-SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

S. 5Constitution of Pakistan, Art.10-AJudicial officerCharge of misconductCompulsory retirementInquiry Officer participating in the meeting of Administration CommitteeDecision-making authority being biasEffectFair trialNatural justice, principles ofScope

Inquiry Officer had pre-judged the issue against the appellant before participating in the meeting of Administration Committee

Inquiry Officer who had already formed an opinion against the appellant could not be said that he sat in the meeting with an unbiased mind

Doctrine of natural justice should be complied with

Decision-maker or authority should not be biased or prejudiced

Fair trial required that the rights of a person be determined by an independent and impartial court/tribunal/authority

No one should adjudicate a matter in which he had formed an opinion adversely to the party

Inquiry Officer could not participate in the meeting of Administration Committee of High Court in which the case of appellant was considered

Presence of Inquiry Officer in the said meeting was not a mere irregularity but was an illegality which had vitiated the whole proceedings

Impugned notification was set aside and Registrar of the High Court was directed to place the matter before the Authority (Administration Committee) for a fresh decision

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2018 PLC 73 PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

S. 33Dismissal from serviceCharge of misconductDe-novo inquiryAppointment of independent inquiry officerPrerogative of the employer to appoint inquiry officerScopeRude behaviour of the employee towards managementEffectEmployee alleged that inquiry was conducted against all canon of justice and equity and alleged bias of inquiry officer

Employee contended that his witness be cross-examined in his presence in the enquiry proceedings and then his statement be recorded

Employer contended that the employee had moved various applications just to frustrate the inquiry proceedings

Labour Court dismissed grievance petition of the employee

Validity

Employee had moved various applications for adjournment of inquiry proceedings, however, no employee from the entire factory came forward to corroborate the version of the employee

Employee boycotted the inquiry proceedings alleging that all the witnesses had supported the version of management which was not warranted under the law

Employee having not raised any objection against the inquiry officer during the inquiry proceedings, he was estopped by his words and conduct to level any allegation of lack of confidence in Inquiry Officer

Mere allegation of bias against Inquiry Officer would not be sufficient

Employer had prerogative to appoint Inquiry Officer from the management and the employee had not objected to such appointment at the relevant time

Demand of the employee of recording of his statement after the evidence of his witness was erroneous because witness of the employee had to corrborate his statement

Employee was dismissed from service after a just and fair inquiry as alleged misconduct was established in the inquiry

Punishment was the discretion of employer

No illegality or infirmity having been noticed, appeal of the employee was dismissed accordingly.

2018 PLC(CS)N 37 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Contract appointmentCharge of misconductWithdrawal of appointmentDispensing with regular inquiryDiscretion, exercise ofFair trialScopeAppointment of petitioner-employee was withdrawn on the allegation of submitting fake/bogus experience certificateValidityServices of petitioner-employee were governed by the terms and conditions of a contractCompetent authority could dispense with holding of regular inquiry but said principle would vary from case to case

Where services of an employee had been terminated on the charge of getting employment on the basis of fake/bogus experience certificate coupled with cheating and fraud then employer should hold factual inquiry giving opportunity to the accused official to defend himself

Nature of allegation and defence taken by the petitioner required a detail factual inquiry

Right of fair trial was a fundamental right of citizen

Discretion to dispense with regular inquiry was to be exercised fairly with application of mind keeping in view the principles of natural justice and equity

Contract of service had expired

Stigma had been attached to the employee

Case was remanded to the department to conduct an inquiry affording opportunity of hearing/defence to the employee and all concerned and then pass an order in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

2018 PLC(CS) 1057 KHYBER-PAKHTUNKHWA-SUBORDINATE-JUDICIARY-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

S. 5

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, Rr.2(1)(e), 4(1)(b)(i), 4(1)(a)(i) & 7-A

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.169

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302

Judicial officer

Charge of misconduct

Major penalty of reduction to two stages lower in time scale for a period of four years

Scope

Appellant being Judicial Magistrate while hearing a petition under S.169, Cr.P.C. ordered not to arrest the accused involved in a criminal case registered under S.302, P.P.C.

Inquiry officer imposed minor penalty of censure but authority did not agree and minor penalty was converted into major penalty of reduction to two stages lower in time scale for a period of four years

Validity

Appellant had acted under influence of Additional Sessions Judge and misused his judicial position while seized of an application under S.169, Cr.P.C. and issued notice/'PARWANA' for requisitioning of the record by directing his Moharir to put a note for not to arrest the accused till decision of the said application'

Act committed by the appellant could safely be termed as "misconduct"

Judicial officer was rightly proceeded under Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973

Role played by the appellant was not expected from him as a judicial officer having been assigned the noble cause of administrating justice without fear or favour

Judicial officer had failed to understand the law and the principles of independence of judiciary by acting under the command, influence, inducement and pressure of Additional Sessions Judge

Appellant could not point out any irregularity, illegality or a jurisdictional defect in the impugned order passed by the authority

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 PLC(CS)N 50 PUNJAB-SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

R. 7(7-a)Constitution of Pakistan, Art.10-APunjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (XII of 1991), S.5Judicial officerCharge of misconductDisciplinary proceedingsRecommendation for imposition of minor penalty by the inquiry officerEnhancement of penalty by the AuthorityRequirementsDoctrine of natural and procedural justiceFair trial

Inquiry officer made recommendations for imposition of minor penalty of withholding of promotion of the appellant for a period of four years

Competent authority issued show cause notice for enhancement of penalty upon which reply was filed by the judicial officer which was found unsatisfactory and major penalty of compulsory retirement was awarded

Validity

Inquiry officer without imposing minor penalty had sent record to the Authority for further proceedings which was procedural injustice

Competent authority could not enhance the penalty as no minor penalty was imposed by the inquiry officer

Doctrine of natural and procedural justice should have been complied with

Infraction of such requirement was vice which would vitiate the proceedings

Competent authority was required to pass an order for enhancement of penalty within 30 days from the receipt of record which was mandatory requirement of the Rules

Department had passed final order for enhancement of punishment after lapse of nine months which was not a valid notification

Department ceased to have any lawful authority and jurisdiction to pass any order after lapse of stipulated period

Proceedings from the stage when inquiry officer transmitted record to the authority till imposition of major penalty were not valid for want of jurisdiction, non-compliance of doctrine of procedural justice and non-adherence to the principle of fair trial and due process

Inquiry officer after he had decided to take action against the appellant should have passed an order after affording a chance of being heard to him

Non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Rules had prejudiced the appellant

Competent authority while disagreeing with the findings of inquiry officer had neither recorded any reason for doing so nor passed order within the stipulated period of time

Said omission had affected the rights of appellant

Impugned order was set aside

Department was directed to reinstate the appellant into service with effect from the date he was compulsorily retired

Arrears of pay and other back benefits, for the period, the appellant remained out of service, should be granted if he satisfied that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during the said period

Competent authority, however could proceed against the appellant either de novo or from the stage from which the error could be corrected

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2017 PLC 143 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 46Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionGrievance petition Labour CourtPowers ofScopeEmployee of a companyCharge of misconductDismissal from service

Employee was dismissed from service after conducting regular inquiry against which grievance petition was moved which was accepted

Validity

Labour Court had powers to go into the facts of the case and pass order as might be proper and just

Labour Court could examine the material to determine as to whether punishment awarded to the workman was sustainable or not

Inquiry proceedings and facts had been exhaustively attended by the forums below

None of the allegations against the employee was proved in the inquiry

Conduct of employee was not riotous or disorderly and he did not commit misconduct but he being General Secretary CBA had only presented the demands and problems of workers before the management

Employee produced reliable evidence in his defence in the inquiry but inquiry officer had failed to discuss the same

Manager of employer company and inquiry officer was the same

High Court, in circumstances, could interfere in the concurrent findings while exercising constitutional jurisdiction when some illegality was on record having nexus with the relevant material

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.