SAEED AHMED vs NESTLE PAKISTAN LIMITED — 2026 PLC 53 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.

SAEED AHMED VS NESTLE PAKISTAN LIMITED. Sched., S.Os. 1(b) & 12---Disciplinary proceedings---Submitting a fake medical expenses bill, allegation of---Inquiry officer failing to call key witness from dental clinic for verification of the bill---Effect---Burden of proof to establish misconduct in inquiry proceedings---Duty of employer to prove misconduct---Scope---The petitioner, a permanent workman within the meaning of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, was employed by the respondent company---In September 2015, he underwent a dental procedure for which he submitted a medical bill of Rs. 10,000 to the company for reimbursement under the approved policy---Subsequently, on 1st December 2015, he was served a show-cause notice alleging that the bill was bogus---Despite denying the allegations and participating in the inquiry, he was dismissed from service---The petitioner filed a grievance before the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), where a single-bench upheld his dismissal, but the full-bench later set aside that decision and ordered his reinstatement---The company then filed a Constitutional petition before the High Court which was allowed restoring the order of dismissal, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court---Held: Since there were several bills for the dental treatment available on record, it was the responsibility of the inquiry officer either to call the doctor or the representative of dental clinic for evidence in the inquiry to prove which document issued by them was true and correct and which document was fake or forged---When the contradictory receipts were available on record it was obligatory for the inquiry officer to call the witnesses from the hospital for evidence and verification with the right of cross-examination to the petitioner without which the truth could not be unearthed---In the present case, the evidence of the representative of dental clinic/doctor was inevitable for proving the guilt whether the petitioner paid Rs. 7000 or Rs. 10,000/- and whether he really submitted a bill of excess amount or not---The witness from the hospital could be the star witness in this case who was ignored and no efforts were made by the management representative to call him before the inquiry officer as management's witness and no burden could be shifted on the employee to call him if the management did not want to verify or confront those medical bills to their star/key witness which by their own mistake lost its evidentiary value and nothing proved on record which bill of hospital/clinic was genuine---Appellate judgment of full bench NIRC was quite rational and judicious---Impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside and appellate judgment of NIRC's full bench was restored---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances.

SAEED AHMED vs NESTLE PAKISTAN LIMITED — 2026 PLC 53 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLC