KHURSHID vs PUNJAB WORKERS WELFARE BOARD Ss — 2026 PLC(CS) 106 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

KHURSHID VS PUNJAB WORKERS WELFARE BOARD Ss.3, 4(1)(b)(v), 5, 7, 9 & 10---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.4, 10-A & 13---Departmental proceedings---Absence from duty, allegation of---Major penalty of removal from service, imposition of---Dispensing with regular inquiry---Legality---Requirement to recorded reasons when dispensing with regular inquiry---Regular inquiry being a necessity where facts are disputed---Opportunity to the accused employee to lead evidence and cross-examine---Due process---Fair trial---Scope---Briefly, the petitioner was appointed as a driver in the Punjab Workers Welfare Board in 1997 and was served with a show-cause notice on 23.12.2015 for alleged absence from duty, after which the competent authority, following apersonal hearing but without conducting a regular inquiry, imposed the major penalty of removal from service---Departmental appeal was dismissed---Thereafter petitioner filed are presentation which was rejected, followed by proceedings before the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal, both of which ultimately declined relief on jurisdictional grounds, leaving the petitioner to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---The issue requiring determination before the High Court was "whether the penalty of removal from service imposed without holding a regular inquiry under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 was lawful and sustainable?"---Held: Disputed facts were involved in the matter as the petitioner in his reply had taken ground of medical treatment and for issuance of license from another city and authenticity or otherwise of such facts could not be considered without conducting a regular inquiry---If the allegations had been levelled on the basis of complaint of principal, then there was a requirement that right of cross-examination had to be given to the petitioner---No reason had been mentioned by the competent authority to dispense with the inquiry and had proceeded against the petitioner only on the basis of opinion which was not in accordance with the relevant rules---Imposing major penalty to the petitioner in such circumstances was not permissible under any rule or law---Nevertheless, allegation against the petitioner was no more in the filed as his absence period had been converted into leave kind due---The absence period for which the petitioner had already been granted extra ordinary leave without pay could not be considered/mentioned again while imposing on him major penalty of removal from service rather it could be considered that absence period had been regularized by the authority---The respondent department in a stereotype and mechanical manner proceeded against the petitioner and imposed him major penalty of removal from service which was not warranted under law---Even otherwise while dispensing with the regular inquiry, cogent and justifiable reasons should have been recorded by the competent authority but in the present case inquiry had been dispensed with in an arbitrary manner, therefore, the impugned orders were in violation of Arts. 4, 10-A and 13 of the Constitution and Ss. 7, 9 and 10 of the Act---Impugned orders were set aside---The competent authority was at liberty to conduct regular inquiry under the law---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

KHURSHID vs PUNJAB WORKERS WELFARE BOARD Ss — 2026 PLC(CS) 106 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLC