ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has ruled that the major penalty of dismissal from service cannot be imposed without a regular inquiry or providing the civil servant an opportunity to be heard, as it violates the principles of natural justice.
A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Musarat Hilali and comprising Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Miangul Hasaan Aurangzeb, issued the judgement in a service matter case titled Malik Muhammad Ramzan vs Commissioner Sargodha Division.
The petitioner, Malik Ramzan, had filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore’s judgement dated January 24, 2022, which dismissed his appeal. He had challenged the order dated March 2, 2018, passed by the departmental authority in revision before the Tribunal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974.
The Supreme Court heard the petitioner’s appeal on June 19, 2025, and set aside the Tribunal’s judgement. It directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service but remanded the matter to the departmental authority to conduct a de novo inquiry into the allegations against him, ensuring he is given a fair opportunity to be heard under Sections 9 and 10 of the PEEDA Act, 2006. The court expected the inquiry to be concluded within three months of receiving its order.
“In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the judgement passed by the Tribunal and the orders of the lower fora are contrary to law and violative of the principles of natural justice,” stated the 6-page judgement authored by Justice Abbasi.
The court held that no regular inquiry was conducted before imposing the major penalty of dismissal, nor was the petitioner given an opportunity to defend himself.
According to the Punjab Service Tribunal’s records, on February 29, 2016, the District Coordination Officer/ District Collector, Mianwali, dismissed the petitioner from service under the PEEDA Act, 2006, on charges of fraud and embezzlement. The allegations claimed the petitioner had increased cheque amounts through forgery after obtaining signatures from authorities.
The petitioner filed a departmental appeal, which was rejected on November 11, 2016. His subsequent revision petition was also dismissed on March 2, 2018. Challenging this, he approached the Tribunal, which upheld the dismissal on January 24, 2022, prompting the present appeal.
The petitioner, appearing in person, argued that the allegations were baseless and that he was denied a fair hearing. He claimed he was never served a show-cause notice, nor was a proper inquiry conducted before his dismissal. He further contended that the respondents produced no evidence to prove he was given an opportunity to defend himself.
The Additional Advocate General (AAG) for Punjab opposed the petition, asserting that the Tribunal’s judgement was legally sound and that sufficient evidence supported the charges.
The court noted that the respondents failed to provide any record proving the petitioner was served a show-cause notice or allowed to participate in the inquiry. The petitioner’s claim that he was in jail during the purported inquiry remained unchallenged, reinforcing his argument that he was denied due process.
When questioned, the AAG could not produce any document confirming the petitioner was served a notice. The court held that the department failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Sections 9 and 10 of the PEEDA Act, 2006, rendering the dismissal unlawful.
“It is a settled legal principle that a major penalty like dismissal cannot be imposed without a regular inquiry or affording the civil servant a chance to be heard, as it violates natural justice,” the judgement concluded.
