MUHAMMAD NIAZ KHAN vs R.P — 2025 SCMR 1916 SUPREME-COURT

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

MUHAMMAD NIAZ KHAN VS R.P.O. SHEIKHUPURA REGION AT LAHORE arts. 4, 14 & 25---Punjab Service Tribunals act (IX of 1974), S. 5---Punjab Service Tribunal---Powers---Treatment in accordance with law---Human dignity---Equality before the law---Scope---Petitioner (Sub-Inspector) was proceeded against on allegations pertaining to faulty investigation by him, and was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service; on departmental appeal, the penalty was reduced to a two-stage reduction in pay while he was reinstated into service---Petitioner approached the Punjab Service Tribunal ('Tribunal'), seeking reinstatement with effect from the date of his original dismissal, along with all consequential benefits, however, the Tribunal modified the penalty from a two-stage to a one-stage reduction in pay ('impugned order')---Validity---articles 4, 14 and 25 of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to be treated in accordance with law, human dignity, and equality before the law, require all forums, including Tribunals, to ensure that disciplinary measures are not only lawful but also fair and just---In the present case, once the Tribunal concluded that the disciplinary process was procedurally flawed and unsupported by evidence, it was legally and constitutionally bound to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits---Failure of the Tribunal to do so reflected a fundamental error of law, a misapplication of the principle of proportionality, and a disregard for the constitutional principles of fairness and due process---Endeavouring to "balance" unproven misconduct with the imposition of a continuing penalty is both illogical and legally untenable---Given the manifestly unjust disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was entitled to complete exoneration and full restitution---It is not the role of the Tribunal to engage in an exercise of mercy or compromise where the foundational basis of penal action is wholly unsubstantiated---Fairness demands rectification, not calibration, in the face of injustice---Thus, the impugned order was untenable in both law and fact---Once the Tribunal determined that the charges were unsubstantiated, the only legally viable course was to exonerate the petitioner---The imposition of any penalty, absent proven misconduct, constitutes a violation of natural justice and results in a manifest miscarriage of justice---The Tribunal's decision, being internally inconsistent and contrary to constitutional norms, was accordingly set aside---The petitioner stood exonerated and was directed to be reinstated in service from the date of his original dismissal, with all consequential benefits---accordingly, petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed.

MUHAMMAD NIAZ KHAN vs R.P — 2025 SCMR 1916 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR