DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KASUR and another vs ZAHID ALI
This matter arises from a petition filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kasur and another against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which had partly accepted the respondent Zahid Ali's appeal and waived off a penalty of recovery amounting to Rs. 108,740. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in waiving the departmental penalty without valid and cogent reasons, particularly when no regular departmental inquiry had been conducted. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, setting aside both the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and the departmental recovery orders. The Court held that dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry without plausible reasons vitiates the penalty. The key principle laid down is that where a departmental inquiry is dispensed with without cogent reasons, the resulting penalty orders are unsustainable, though the department may conduct a de novo inquiry within a specified timeframe.
- Whether the Service Tribunal can waive a departmental penalty of recovery without providing valid and cogent reasons?
- Is a departmental penalty sustainable when a regular inquiry is dispensed with without plausible reasons?
- Can the department conduct a de novo inquiry after the setting aside of illegal departmental orders?
ORDER
' KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.--- The petitioners, aggrieved by the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore whereby the appeal filed by the respondent was partly accepted, the orders dated 17-9- 2009 and 2-2-2010 were modified to the extent that the penalty of recovery of Rs,108740 is waived off.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no valid and cogent reasons have been given by the Tribunal for waiving off the penalty imposed by the competent authority. In reply to a query made by us, whether any departmental inquiry was conducted in the matter looking to the nature of allegations, to which, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that no regular inquiry was conducted and the inquiry was dispensed with. From perusal of the record it appears that while waiving off the inquiry, no plausible reason has been given by the petitioner.
3. In this view of the matter, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed, the impugned judgment as well as orders dated 17-9-2009 and 2-2-2010 are set aside. However, if the department, so desire, can hold de novo inquiry against the respondent within the period of four months from the date of this order.
Cited by 6 cases
- Muhammad Umair vs National Accountability Bureau & others 2025 SHC KHI 2135
- Frass Hameed vs National Accountability Bureau, etc 2022 LHC 3772
- Muhammad Shafique vs The National Highway Authority and five others 2022 LHC 2066
- Aurangzaib vs Federation of Pakistan and 03 others 2021 SHC 414
- Shakir Ali and another vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman, Islamabad and another 2021 PLC (C.S.) 683
- Sarvech Shaikh vs NAB and Others 2020 SHC 1168