Pakistan Case Law
1985 SCMR 1747

INAYATULLAH KHAN vs THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT N.W.F.P., PESHAWAR

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1985 SCMR 1747
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Appeal No. 41‑R of 1979
Date1985-06-16
Judge(s)Muhammad Haleem, C. J., Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman
Authored byMuhammad Haleem
ResultAppeal allowed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from departmental proceedings resulting in the compulsory retirement of the appellant, a Reader in a Magistrate's Court at Peshawar, on charges of misconduct relating to the procurement of a bail order. The core legal question examined was whether the failure to issue a final show-cause notice against the proposed penalty violated the principles of natural justice. Conceding on the basis of established precedent that the omission of a second show-cause notice vitiated the proceedings, the respondent's counsel agreed to a remand of the matter. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower decisions, and remanded the case to the Authorized Officer to resume proceedings from the stage of the second show-cause notice and decide the matter afresh. The key principle laid down is that failure to provide a final show-cause notice before imposing a major penalty in departmental proceedings constitutes a violation of natural justice, warranting a remand for rectification.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the failure to give a final show-cause notice against a proposed penalty in departmental proceedings violates the principles of natural justice?
  • Does the omission of a second show-cause notice warrant the remand of a disciplinary case to the Authorized Officer?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 363, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 366, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
service tribunalcompulsory retirementmisconductshow-cause noticenatural justicedepartmental proceedingsremand

1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.-- Leave to appeal was granted to examine questions amongst others as to whether the failure to give afinal show-cause notice against the proposed penalty was violative of the principles of natural justice.

2. The appellant herein at the relevant the was a Reader in the Court of a Magistrate at Peshawar, and departmental proceedings were taken against him for having colluded with the accused in a complaint case under sections 363, 366 and 376, P.P.C. And his counsel for procuring a bail order and having been found guilty of misconduct, was compulsorily retired from service. The appeal to the Service Tribunal did not succeed, but leave was granted by this Court to examine this question amongst others.

3. The Assistant Advocate-General appeared today on behalf of the respondent and conceded on the basis of the law laid down in Syed Mir Muhammad v. N.W.F.P. Government through Chief Secretary PLD 1981 SC 176 and Qazi Faizul Haq v. N.-W.F.P. Through the Chief Secretary 1984 SCMR 451, that in view of the failure to give a second show-cause notice there has been a violation of the principles; of natural justice and as such the case should be remanded to the Authorised Officer from the stage at which this second show-cause notice should have been given to the appellant.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant also agreed to this submission for remand.

5. Accordingly, while allowing the appeal we would remand the case to the Authorised Officer for complying with this formality from the stage indicated herein above and to decide it afresh. There will be no order as to costs.

Cited by 6 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.