SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL
MR. JUSTICE SHAHID WAHEED

Civil Petition No.1276 of 2020

(Against the order dated 11.10.2019
passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal
in Appeal No.4309 of 2012)

Sanaullah Sani … Petitioner

VERSUS

Secretary Education Schools

etc. … Respondents

For the Petitioner : Ch. Afrasiab Khan, ASC and

Mr. M. Mehmood Chaudhry, ASC
along with petitioner (in person)

For the Respondents : Mr. Sanaullah Zahid, Adl. A.G., Pb.

Muhammad Imran, Law Officer,
School Education Department, Govt.
of Punjab

Date of Hearing : 17.08.2023

JUDGMENT

Shahid Waheed, J. This petition is by a retired government

teacher seeking leave to appeal against the judgment, dated
11th of October, 2019, of the Punjab Service Tribunal
upholding the punishment imposed on him on the
culmination of the disciplinary proceedings.

2. The facts of this case consists of two parts. The

first part deals with the facts which form the background to
the second part, while the second part is about the facts
which constitute the cause and led to the matter being
brought first to the Tribunal and then to this Court. So, let
us state the background facts first. In January, 2007, the
petitioner was posted as Deputy District Education Officer
Civil Petition No.1276 of 2020
2

(M-EE), Wahga Town, Lahore Cantt. At that time, three PTC

teachers were absent from duty. Two of them, namely,
Farooq Ahmed and Muhammad Siddique, filed separate writ
petitions in the High Court stating that the petitioner was
neither allowing them to join the duty nor deciding their
applications for release of salary. The High Court disposed of
these writ petitions with a direction to the petitioner to
decide on their applications. In the meantime, the third
absentee teacher, Muhammad Khalid, presented his
application for joining duty directly to the petitioner. On
these applications, the petitioner gave separate notices to
these teachers to show their cause, as to why they were
absent from duty. After taking their replies and perusing the
record, the petitioner allowed these teachers to join duty by
his written orders, issued in July & August, 2010. However,
he did not grant them any back benefits. They joined the
duty, commenced working and also started drawing their
salary. Here ends the first part.

3. Now, we briefly state the facts of the second

part. On 30th of June, 2011, when the petitioner was nearing
retirement, a person named Allah Rakha, filed a complaint
that the petitioner had allowed the said teachers to join duty
on fake appointment letters by accepting a huge bribe.
Based on this complaint, the Secretary of the School
Education Department, Government of Punjab, on 07th of
February, 2012, ordered proceedings against the petitioner
under Section 3 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency,
Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (the PEEDA) on
charges of inefficiency, misconduct and corruption and
appointed Haji Munawar Hussain, Principal, Government
Comprehensive High School, Gujranwala, as the Inquiry
Officer. The statement of allegations forming the above
charges was not set out well, and hence, it is reproduced
here to avoid any ambiguity and doubt. It reads that “he
while posted as Deputy District Education Officer (BS-18)
Wahga Town, Lahore Cantt joined/inducted the following PTC
Teachers without checking the office record/genuineness of
Civil Petition No.1276 of 2020
3

the appointment orders and caused a heavy loss to Govt.

Exchequer”. Reference in this allegation was to (i) Farooq Ahmad,
PTC Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Sahankay, Lahore Cantt; (ii)
Muhammad Khalid, PTC Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Rakh
Hardit Singh, Lahore Cantt, and (iii) Muhammad Siddique PTC
Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Thehpura, Lahore Cantt, about
whom we have explained in the background facts. The Inquiry
Officer recorded the statement of two prosecution witnesses,
the complainant Allah Rakha, the said three PTC teachers
and the petitioner. On 11th of June, 2012, the Inquiry Officer
submitted his report with twofold recommendations. One is
to impose a penalty of withholding of 50% pension on the
petitioner and to recover from him an amount of
Rs.1,090,373/- on account of the salary paid to the above-
stated teachers. Two, action should also be taken against
these teachers under the PEEDA. Pursuant to these
recommendations, the Secretary of the School Education
Department, on 20th of June, 2012, issued a show cause
notice to the petitioner as to why the penalty proposed by the
Inquiry Officer should not be imposed upon him. The
petitioner submitted his reply, but it did not find favour with
the Secretary of the School Education Department and he
vide his order dated 12th of July, 2012, imposed a penalty of
withholding of 20% of pension with recovery of Rs.963,467/.
The petitioner then took his departmental appeal to the Chief
Secretary. His appeal did not succeed and was dismissed by
the order dated 11th of October, 2012. Cheesed off, he then
approached the Punjab Service Tribunal but failed to bring
home his innocence, as his appeal was dismissed on 11th of
October, 2019. So, this petition is before us.

4. Impeaching the judgment of the Tribunal, it is

contended on behalf of the petitioner that the inquiry report
and consequent penalty imposed on him are illegal for they
are based on a vague show cause notice that conflated three
distinct charges, which are inefficiency, misconduct and
corruption, and it does not disclose any details of the
incidents forming these charges, that it was not taken into
Civil Petition No.1276 of 2020
4

consideration by any of the fora that the teachers who were

allowed to join duty were already on the strength of the
department and had been drawing their salary before the
petitioner was posted as Deputy Director Education Officer.
Their appointment was neither declared bogus by any
competent authority nor any disciplinary proceedings were
undertaken against them; they were paid salary only for the
actual work done by them, and the whole proceedings smack
of bad intention to deprive him of his good reputation and
pension.

5. The quintessence of these arguments is that

since the entire disciplinary proceedings were founded on an
illegal show cause notice, the resulting punishment cannot
be justified. This makes it profoundly important for us first
to examine how the law contemplates the show cause notice
and what are the essentials prescribed for it.

6. A conjoint reading of the various provisions of

the PEEDA suggests that a show cause notice is not an
accusation made or information given in abstract but an
accusation made against an employee in respect of an act
committed or omitted, cognizable thereunder. As such, the
law intends that a show cause notice must conform to at
least seven essential elements, and these include:
(a) it should be in writing and should be worded
appropriately;
(b) it should clearly state the nature of the
charge(s), date, and place of the commission or
omission of acts, along with apportionment of
responsibility;
(c) it should clearly quote the clause of the
PEEDA under which the delinquent is liable to
be punished;
(d) it should also indicate the proposed penalty
in case the charge is proved;
(e) it should specify the time and date within
which the employee should submit his
Civil Petition No.1276 of 2020
5

explanation in writing. It is also preferable to

add in the show cause notice that if no written
explanation is received from the accused within
the prescribed date, the enquiry will be
conducted ex-parte;
(f) it should be issued under the signature of the
competent authority and
(g) it should contain the time, date and place of
the inquiry and the name of the inquiry officer.

7. It must be mentioned here that strict compliance

of the above conditions is vital so that the principle of
natural justice is not violated. It is thus emphasised that the
charges made in the show cause notice should not be vague.
All the acts of commission or omission constituting the
charge, and also forming the ground for proceeding against
the employee, should be clearly specified because otherwise,
it will be difficult for an employee, even by projecting his
imagination, to discover all the facts and circumstances that
may be in the contemplation of the competent authority to
be established against him, and thus, it will not only
frustrate the requirement of giving him a reasonable
opportunity to put up a defence but also amount to a
violation of his fundamental right to a fair trial.1

8. In light of the above position of law, we now seek

to ascertain whether the alleged acts of omission or
commission could have led to the petitioner’s punishment.
The first charge levelled against the petitioner was
corruption, but the alleged acts of omission and commission
stated in the notice/order lacked material particular to that
charge. It did not mention that the petitioner had accepted a
huge bribe from anyone. Therefore, the Inquiry Officer could

1 State of Andhra Prdesh and others v. Sree Rama Rao (AIR 1963 SC
1723),
Surath Chandra Chakravrty v. The State of West Bengal (AIR 1971 SC
752),
Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(1986) 3 SCC 454)
And Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetria Gramin Bank and Ors
[(2011) 14 SCC 379]
Civil Petition No.1276 of 2020
6

not have read this charge in the show cause notice/order,

and it appears that this is why the Inquiry Officer did not
mention this charge in his report. What is more, the Inquiry
Officer, in his report has not referred to any statement of
witness which says the taking of bribe by the petitioner. This
charge, therefore, fails on two counts: one, assuming the
alleged acts of omission and commission are correct, no case
of corruption is made out from there, and two, no evidence
has been brought on record to prove the same. So, this
charge could not have led to any punishment.2

9. We now turn to the other charges. The petitioner

was charged with misconduct and inefficiency. The
foundation of these charges mentioned in the show cause
notice/order was that he, while posted as Deputy District
Education Officer, Wahga Town, Lahore Cantt, allowed three
absentee teachers to join duty without checking the office
records and genuineness of their appointment orders and
thus, caused a heavy loss to the government exchequer.
There is no denying that the petitioner, in his reply, stated
that while granting permission to the teachers to join duty,
he had checked the record and found that they had 4 to 19
years of service to their credit and had been previously paid
salaries from the exchequer. Their appointments had never
been declared bogus by any authority, nor any disciplinary
proceedings were undertaken against them. Upon noticing
this fact, we asked learned Additional Advocate General,
Punjab, whether these assertions were correct. He submitted
that the appointment of the teachers was fake, and that is
why they were absent from duty. As such, the petitioner was
required to ascertain the authenticity of their appointment
orders. We wonder how the petitioner could have known that
absence of the teachers from duty was due to the fact that
their appointment was bogus, particularly when nothing to
this effect was available in the office record. It is worth

2Mian Abdul Qadeer v. Government of Pakistan and others (2005 SCMR

1560)
And Muhammad Alamzeb Khan v. Registrar, Peshawar High Court,
Peshawar and another (2008 SCMR 1406)
Civil Petition No.1276 of 2020
7

noting that neither the show cause notice/order nor the

inquiry report says that notwithstanding the written
complaint regarding fake appointment order, the petitioner
had allowed the teachers to join duty. Had it been so, the
position would have been otherwise, and we would have
accepted the argument of the learned Additional Advocate
General, Punjab. A perusal of the inquiry report indicates
that the Inquiry Officer, instead of proving the charges of
misconduct and inefficiency, had put in his energy to
establish that the appointment orders of the teachers were
not genuine. This fact alone is sufficient to conclude that
when the petitioner allowed the teachers to join duty, no
complaint or adverse material against them was available. In
such a situation, the petitioner was not expected to have
checked the genuineness of the appointment orders of the
teachers while allowing them to resume duty. So, again, the
charges were vague, which vitiates the inquiry proceedings
and the resultant punishment.3

10. Nevertheless, we are conscious of the fact that

acts performed and orders made by public authorities
deserve due regard by Courts, and every possible
explanation for their validity should be explored and the
whole field of powers in pursuance of which the public
authorities act or perform their functions examined and only
then if it is found that the act done, order made or
proceedings undertaken is without lawful authority should
the Courts declare them to be of no legal effect.4 We,
therefore, asked the learned Additional Advocate General,
Punjab, to refer us to any law or departmental instructions
making it mandatory for an officer to check the genuineness
of the appointment orders of all those who are absent from

3Lal Muhammad and another v. Government of Sind (1980 SCMR 850)

4(1) The Chairman, East Pakistan Railway Board, Chitta Gong; and (2)
District Traffic Superintendent, Pakistan Eastern Railway, Pahartali,
Chitta Gong v. Abdul Majid Sardar, Ticket Collector, Pakistan Eastern
Railway, Laksam (PLD 1966 SC 725),
And Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore through its Chairman v. The
Custodian, Evacuee Property, West Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others &
University of the Punjab, Lahore v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, West
Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others (PLD 1971 SC 811)
Civil Petition No.1276 of 2020
8

duty, without leave or any other cause, while allowing them

to resume duty. After consulting the departmental
representative, he failed to do so. The irresistible outcome of
the above is that the charges leveled against the petitioner
were laconic, and the Inquiry Officer has taken into
consideration the non-existing material, and findings of all
facts recorded by him cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
And so, the punishment awarded also loses the backing of
the law.5

11. Apart from discussing the merits of this case, we

also wish to observe the quality of the Tribunal’s judgment.
It is to be noted that dictates of law are that a judicial order
must be speaking order manifesting by itself that the Court
or Tribunal has made an effort to resolve the questions
involved for their proper adjudication. A diligent attempt may
lead to ultimate result, but if the final order does not bear an
imprint of that effort and, on the contrary, discloses
arbitrariness of thought and action, the feeling with painful
result that justice has neither been done nor seems to have
been done is inescapable. Here, the Tribunal’s judgment
does not exhibit a judicious treatment of the case and the
determination of the dispute. It was the duty of the Tribunal
to deal with all the issues we pointed out above because
appeal was a valuable right of the employee. Unfortunately,
the Tribunal did not make a bid for appraisement of any of
the grounds advanced before it by the present petitioner.
This is a dereliction of duty and a complete failure to
exercise jurisdiction. The judgment of the Tribunal,
therefore, cannot be held valid.6

5 Allah Bakhsh, Foodgrain Supervisor (Retd.) v. Director Food, Punjab,

Lahore and others (2006 SCMR 403)
6 Gouranga Mohan Sikdar v. The Controller of Import and Export and 2

others (PLD 1970 SC 158)

Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan and others (PLD 1970
SC 173)
Ms. Clare Benedicta Conville and others v. Mst. Sabahat Idrees and
others (2009 SCMR 851)
Muhammad Ameer and others v. Mst. Fajjan and others (2012 CLC
1663)
Civil Petition No.1276 of 2020
9

12. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, this petition is

converted into an appeal and allowed. As a result, the
judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 11th of
October, 2019, is set aside, the punishment order is
quashed, and the department/respondents are directed to
restore the full pension of the petitioner, to refund the
amount of Rs.963,467/- along with the amount so far
recovered from the pension of the petitioner, within two
months positively from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this judgment.

Judge

Judge
Islamabad, the
17.08.2023
“Approved for reporting”.
Sarfraz Ahmad & Agha M. Furqan, LC