FAZAL HUSSAIN vs COMMISSIONER DERA GHAZI KHAN, DIVISION DERA GHAZI KHAN — 2026 SCMR 723 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.

FAZAL HUSSAIN VS COMMISSIONER DERA GHAZI KHAN, DIVISION DERA GHAZI KHAN. Ss.4 & 13(4)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.10-A---Show-cause notice---Requirement of minimum contents, non-fulfillment of---Fundamental right of fair trial, violation of---Award of punishment not provided under law---Effect---Withdrawal of promotion/selection grade and recovery after retirement---Validity. Show cause notice depicted that neither detail of commission of act or omission was provided, nor proposed penalty or recommendations were provided in notice. No provision of PEEDA Act was provided under which petitioner was liable to be penalized upon proving of charges. Strict compliance of requirements was vital to avoid violation of principles of natural justice, as it would not only frustrate requirement of giving reasonable opportunity to put up defence but also amount to violation of fundamental right of fair trial. Statutory ingredients must appear on face of notice and in absence of requisite allegations, notice was void for vagueness. Neither inquiry officer inquired signing authority of order which granted promotion and selection grade, nor members of Departmental Promotion Committee were inquired, which depicted that proceedings were solely revolving against petitioner only and not in any other direction. It was blatant violation of fair trial and ultimately principles of natural justice. Punishment to lower scale awarded to petitioner was punishment for serving employees and not retired employees under PEEDA Act, therefore no recovery could be effected. Being penal in nature, it required a finding that petitioner's act or omission caused quantified loss to exchequer after due inquiry and fair opportunity, however, no such finding existed. Retrospective deprivation and recovery of benefits long enjoyed on higher post was disallowed by Supreme Court. Withdrawal of promotion/selection grade and recovery under Section 4(1)(c) of PEEDA Act were declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, in circumstances.

FAZAL HUSSAIN vs COMMISSIONER DERA GHAZI KHAN, DIVISION DERA GHAZI KHAN — 2026 SCMR 723 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR