SHAHBAZ LATIF vs DIG, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, LAHORE Doctrine of administrative acquiescence

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

SHAHBAZ LATIF VS DIG, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, LAHORE Doctrine of administrative acquiescence---Scope---Considerable length of service---Appointment later found to have been procured through misrepresentation---Dismissal from service---Retrospective recovery of salary---Scope---Petitioner, after rendering services for fifteen years, was dismissed on account of defect in his initial appointment, and salaries received by him were also held recoverable---Validity---The doctrine of administrative acquiescence rooted in principles of equity and fairness, which (doctrine) is based on the idea that if a person, observing another about to perform an act that might infringe upon their rights, remains silent in circumstances where an objection might have prevented the act, they may later be estopped from objecting---Transposed to public law, it implies that prolonged inaction or silence by a public authority, particularly where it had the duty and opportunity to act may amount to institutional acquiescence---In such cases, the authority's delay in enforcing its rights or correcting an irregularity can defeat retrospective punitive action, especially where the individual affected has acted in good faith and to the authority's benefit throughout---The prolonged inaction by the department, its failure to undertake any meaningful verification or scrutiny of the petitioner's appointment for fifteen years amounted to institutional negligence---Significantly, it was only after the passage of fifteen years that the department initiated an inquiry into the petitioner's appointment---Said belated action, without any intervening misconduct by the petitioner, underscored that the lapse lies entirely with the department---Administrative silence over such an extended period, particularly where it results in the receipt and acceptance of services, may amount to acquiescence and estop the department from seeking retrospective punitive measures---Petitioner could not be faulted for the department's own dereliction of its gatekeeping responsibilities---While the eventual termination of service due to irregular appointment may be legally sustainable, the direction for recovery of fifteen years' salary without any allegation or proof of fraud or mala fide intent on the part of the petitioner was manifestly disproportionate, inequitable, and legally untenable---The recovery of salary for services lawfully and diligently performed was impermissible, notwithstanding defects in the initial appointment---Thus, the order for recovery in the present case was arbitrary, excessive, and in clear violation of equitable principles---Supreme Court set-aside the impugned judgment to the extent of recovery of salary from the petitioner, however, the petitioner's dismissal from service, on account of ineligibility at the time of appointment, would remain intact---Petition was converted into an appeal and was partially allowed accordingly.

SHAHBAZ LATIF vs DIG, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, LAHORE Doctrine of administrative acquiescence — 2025 PLD 560 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD