Citation Name: 2023 PLC(CS) 1462 PUNJAB-SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNALBookmark this Case NAEEM AHMAD vs

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 PLC(CS) 1462 PUNJAB-SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNALBookmark this Case NAEEM AHMAD VS REGISTRAR LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE S.10---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.9, 14 & 25---Judicial officer---Major penalty---Termination from service---Charges of corruption and acquiring assets beyond means---Regular inquiry, dispensing with---Legality---Right to life and dignity---Due process---Equality---Services of the Civil Judge were terminated during probation without holding regular inquiry---Validity---When the appellant (Ex-Civil Judge) had refuted the allegations, in such eventuality the matters involved controversial questions of facts which could not have been decided without detailed scrutiny and holding a regular inquiry---Termination of services with stigmatic charges, without holding a regular inquiry, degenerated a host of adverse assumptions against one's character, which had bearing on one's reputation and goodwill for his future career---Thus, it offended right to life and dignity as enshrined under Arts. 9 & 14(1) of the Constitution ---Competent Authority must not dispense with the regular inquiry that could be necessary to probe into charge, particularly when there was likelihood of imposition of major penalty of termination of service if the allegation was proven because it would result into grave miscarriage of justice and prejudice to the aggrieved civil servant---Plausible reasons were to be provided, if at all, the regular inquiry was to be dispensed with---Record revealed that the Hearing Officer duly appointed by the Administrative Committee , after affording personal hearing to the appellant, recommended him either to be re-instated or to hold regular inquiry in order to establish allegation leveled against him---However, the Competent Authority did not consider the said recommendation and proceeded to pass termination order after simply providing personal hearing to the appellant--- Although the Competent Authority was not bound by the recommendation of the Hearing Officer/Inquiry Officer and had powers to differ with it, however, such power had to be exercised on the basis of duly recorded cogent and valid reasons---No cogent reasons had been assigned, in the present case, by the Competent Authority to disagree with the findings and recommendations of the Hearing Officer---Appellant, as a citizen, was entitled to due process, right to be treated fairly at all times, right to procedural fairness and right to procedural propriety---Record also revealed that, in an identical matter, a regular inquiry had been held, thus, the appellant could not be subjected to the discrimination as enshrined under Art. 25 of the Constitution---Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal set aside impugned orders/notifications issued by the Registrar High Court and directed him to hold regular inquiry before deciding the matter as per law---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 PLC(CS) 1462 PUNJAB-SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNALBookmark this Case NAEEM AHMAD vs REGISTRAR LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE S — 2023 PLC(CS) 1462 PUNJAB-SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLC