Compulsory Retirement Without Regular Inquiry — Violation of Fair Trial and Procedural Safeguards
آرٹیکل برائے کیس: 2025 P L C (C.S.) 501 – Zeeshan Asghar v. Province of Punjab
---
عنوان:
"بغیر باقاعدہ انکوائری جبری ریٹائرمنٹ — منصفانہ ٹرائل کے آئینی حق کی خلاف ورزی"
---
متن:
لاہور ہائی کورٹ (راولپنڈی بینچ) نے اپنے فیصلے میں یہ اصول طے کیا کہ کسی سرکاری ملازم کے خلاف بڑی سزا (Major Penalty) مثلاً جبری ریٹائرمنٹ عائد کرنے سے پہلے باقاعدہ اور مکمل انکوائری کا انعقاد ضروری ہے۔ اگر ادارہ کسی وجہ سے انکوائری ختم کرنا چاہے تو اسے تحریری طور پر وجوہات بیان کرنا لازم ہیں۔
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ ’’شوکاز نوٹس‘‘ محض ایک رسمی کارروائی نہیں بلکہ اس کی حیثیت ایف آئی آر کے مترادف ہے، لہٰذا اس میں الزامات واضح، غیر مبہم اور متعلقہ قانون کے تحت ہونے چاہئیں تاکہ ملازم اپنا مؤقف مؤثر طور پر پیش کر سکے۔
اس مقدمے میں مدعی کو صرف ’’پچھلے خراب ریکارڈ‘‘ کی بنیاد پر شوکاز نوٹس دیا گیا، نہ تو کسی قانون کا حوالہ دیا گیا اور نہ ہی مکمل انکوائری کی گئی۔ فیکٹ فائنڈنگ انکوائری کو ریگولر انکوائری کا متبادل سمجھا گیا جو کہ غلط ہے۔
عدالت نے یہ بھی قرار دیا کہ اگرچہ ادارے کو اختیار حاصل ہے کہ وہ انکوائری کو کسی خاص حالت میں ختم کرے، لیکن ایسا کرنے کے لیے ’’قابلِ جواز تحریری وجوہات‘‘ کا ہونا لازمی ہے۔ جبری ریٹائرمنٹ کے اس حکم نے ملازم کے آئینی حقوق، خصوصاً آرٹیکل 4 (قانون کے مطابق سلوک کا حق) اور آرٹیکل 10-A (منصفانہ ٹرائل کا حق) کی خلاف ورزی کی۔
لہٰذا عدالت نے حکم دیا کہ بغیر ریگولر انکوائری کے جبری ریٹائرمنٹ غیرقانونی اور کالعدم ہے۔
---
کلیدی حوالہ جات:
Federation of Pakistan v. Zahid Malik (2023 SCMR 603)
Raja Muhammad Shahid v. I.G. Police (2023 SCMR 1135)
Sanaullah Sani v. Secretary Education (2024 SCMR 80)
Muhammad Naeem Akhtar v. M.D. WASA (2017 SCMR 356)
Exactly wording of the Court
2025 P L C (C.S.) 501
[Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench)]
Before Mirza Viqas Rauf, J
ZEESHAN ASGHAR
Versus
PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary School Education, Government of the Punjab and 4 others
Writ Petition No.1465 of 2023, heard on 10th October, 2024.
Punjab Government Educational and Training Institutions Ordinance (XI of 1960)---
----S.18(2)(e)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.4 &10-A---Cadet College, Hasanabadal---Departmental proceedings on the basis of previous bad record---Fact finding inquiry---Non-mentioning of relevant law in show-cause notice under which it had been issued---Dispensation of regular inquiry without assigning any reason---Non-observance of procedure in cases calling for major penalty---Infliction of major penalty of compulsory retirement---Dismissal of departmental appeal and review filed by the petitioner---Validity---In exercise of powers conferred on it by S. 18(2)(e) of the Punjab Government Education and Training Institutions Ordinance, 1960 (Ordinance), Board of Governors was pleased to frame, with the approval of the Government of the Punjab, "Cadet College, Hasanabdal Employees' Efficiency and Discipline Regulations (Regulations)---Regulation deals with penalties, whereas Regulation prescribes procedure for inquiry in case of inefficiency, misconduct and corruption---Neither regular inquiry had been conducted by the authority, nor any reasons had been recorded for dispensing the regular inquiry, however, show-cause notice transpired that some fact-finding inquiry was conducted prior to its issuance, which in no way was sufficient to justify the dispensation of regular inquiry---Term "Show-Cause Notice" in the departmental proceedings can be equated with First Information Report (F.I.R.) in a criminal case---"Show-Cause Notice" is meant to state the grounds for launching departmental proceedings against the employee, thus, it is necessary that a show-cause notice must be worded properly and in an unambiguous manner, stating the nature of the allegation(s)/charge(s) to which the accused/employee has to respond---Petitioner had not been confronted with any allegations/charges specifically except his previous conduct---No provision was cited under which show-cause notice was issued and no procedure prescribed in the Regulations had been followed at all---Petitioner was awarded major penalty but without holding any regular inquiry---Though it was discretionary with the department to dispense with the regular inquiry in the facts and circumstances of the case but such dispensation had to be backed by some compelling justifiable reasons, assigned in writing, which were lacking in the case, thus, petitioner had been deprived of his vested right of fair trial as guaranteed under Arts. 4 and 10-A of the Constitution---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
Federation of Pakistan through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue FBR House, Islamabad and others v. Zahid Malik 2023 SCMR 603 and Raja Muhammad Shahid v. The Inspector General of Police and others 2023 SCMR 1135 ref.
Sanaullah Sani v. Secretary Education Schools and others 2024 SCMR 80; Muhammad Naeem Akhtar v. Managing Director Water and Sanitation Agency LDA, Lahore and others 2017 SCMR 356; Senior Superintendent of Police (Operation) and others v. Shahid Nazir 2022 SCMR 327 and Federation of Pakistan through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue FBR House, Islamabad and others v. Zahid Malik 2023 SCMR 603 rel.
Malik Muhammad Awaid Khalid for Petitioner.
Malik Amjad Ali, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for Respondent No.1.
Ali Akbar Javed Naqvi and Muhammad Mohkam Bajwa for Respondents Nos.2 to 5.
Popular articles
No comments:
Post a Comment