SHAHID SALEEM, EX-ASSISTANT/HEAD CLERK, REGIONAL DIRECTORATE OF APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING, TEVTA, MULTAN vs GOVE

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

SHAHID SALEEM, EX-ASSISTANT/HEAD CLERK, REGIONAL DIRECTORATE OF APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING, TEVTA, MULTAN VS GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chairperson TEVTA, Punjab, Lahore Ss.4, 5 & 16(2)(d)---Inquiry proceedings---Lesser punishment imposed after first inquiry---De-novo inquiry on same set of allegations---Major penalty of removal from service---Double jeopardy---Principle---Scope---Present matter raised an intriguing question of whether the competent authority, which initially disagreed with the recommendation of removal from service proposed by the inquiry officer and imposed a lesser penalty of demotion, could later on, upon remand of the matter by the appellate authority and after holding de-novo inquiry, inflict a major penalty of removal from service---Facts in brevity were that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (the "PEEDA Act, 2006") on charges of non-accomplishment of official assignments---Initially, the inquiry officer recommended removal from service, but the competent authority imposed a lesser penalty of demotion---In appeal, the appellate authority remanded the matter for a de-novo inquiry due to procedural lapses---After fresh inquiry, the competent authority imposed the major penalty of removal from service---Held: It was not a case where the earlier penalty was deemed inadequate, rather, the procedure adopted by the respondent-department was considered improper, requiring rectification---Therefore, the fresh inquiry was meant to validate the procedural fairness and not to reconsider the proportionality of the punishment---By imposing a harsher penalty (removal from service), the competent authority acted in an unfair and unjust manner---Once the competent authority, in its wisdom, imposed a lesser penalty (demotion), the petitioner had a legitimate expectation that the disciplinary matter was conclusively determined to the extent of quantum of punishment---Moreover, as per the principle of proportionality in service law the punishment must have corresponded to the gravity of the misconduct---The competent authority, in the first instance, determined that demotion was an appropriate response to the alleged misconduct---There was no aggravated misconduct in the de-novo inquiry and therefore, imposing a more severe penalty, upon rehearing the same set of allegations, violated the principle of proportionality and created an impression of double jeopardy in the disciplinary proceedings---Competent authority had not given any reason whatsoever from deviating from its earlier decision to impose the lesser punishment---Once a particular penalty of demotion had been imposed by the competent authority, and the petitioner had assailed the said findings before the appellate forum, which remanded the matter for de-novo inquiry, the imposition of harsher punishment by the competent authority, during post remand proceedings, on the basis of same set of allegations and charges ran contrary to the principle of fairness---Matter could be examined from another angle; had the petitioner not preferred an appeal, his punishment would have remained as demotion---It is untenable and unjust to penalize an individual for exercising his legal right to prefer an appeal by subjecting him to a harsher penalty, on the same set of allegations---Impugned orders were set aside and the Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

SHAHID SALEEM, EX-ASSISTANT/HEAD CLERK, REGIONAL DIRECTORATE OF APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING, TEVTA, MULTAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chairperson TEVTA, Punjab, Lahore Ss — 2025 PLC(CS) 1012 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC