ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Wednesday observed that an inquiry on charges of misconduct was a serious matter, threatening the career and livelihood of an employee.
A two-member bench of the apex court, comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Mussarat Hilali, issued a judgment in a case titled Muhammad Abid verses Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through secretary Excise, Taxation and Narcotics Control Department, Peshawar.
The petitioner, Muhammad Abid, had filed an appeal with the apex court against the judgment/order dated 09.12.2020 passed by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar.
The petitioner, who was working as Naib Qasid in the Excise & Taxation Department, D.I. Khan in the year 2011, was removed from service after an anonymous complaint was received, levelling allegations against him.
The inquiry officer was directed to conduct an inquiry and submit a report within three days.
The Supreme Court after hearing the case on July 1, 2025 set aside the removal from service order of the petitioner dated 08.11.2018 and remanded the matter to the competent authority to conduct a de novo inquiry into the allegations of misconduct after providing ample opportunity of defence to the petitioner.
The court directed that the payment of back benefits will be subject to the outcome of the de novo inquiry adding that the inquiry shall be conducted and completed within a period of three months and the petitioner was also directed to participate in the inquiry.
The court declared that if there was any change in the address of the petitioner, he will provide his new address to the competent authority so that a notice of inquiry may be dispatched to him at his current abode, or he can receive the notice from the office to ensure his appearance and participation before the inquiry officer.
“An inquiry on charges of misconduct is a serious matter; the whole career or livelihood of an employee/civil servant is put on peril,” says a 6-page judgment authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.
The court held that departmental inquiry should have been conducted with proper application of mind and due process and not in haste or in a slipshod manner or with the sole aim of victimizing the accused of misconduct, even if the allegations are unproved.
“All judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative authorities should carry out their powers with a judicious and even-handed approach to ensure that justice is done according to the tenor of law and without any violation of the principle of natural justice,” says the judgment
The court held that it was the prime duty of the inquiry officer to provide an opportunity to the accused person to defend himself against the charges and when any witness was produced against the accused, he should be given an opportunity to cross-examine such witness in his defence.