ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday emphasised the necessity of adopting fair procedure in disciplinary proceedings against government servants, stating that the denial of such valuable rights will lead to strangulation and deprivation of well-entrenched right of defence.

“This right is unequivocally and distinctly provided for in all Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules,” observed Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar who headed a two-judge Supreme Court bench hearing an appeal of Muhammad Abid against the Dec 9, 2020, dismissal of a government employee by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) Service Tribunal.

Before appointing an inquiry officer, the competent authority should ensure, with due diligence, that the person appointed is familiar with and mindful of the rudimentary rules of inquiry, Justice Mazhar noted in a six-page judgement.

The apex court, however, set aside the Nov 8, 2018, removal-from-service order against Muhammad Abid and remanded the matter to the competent authority to conduct a de novo inquiry (fresh investigation) into the allegations of misconduct, after providing ample opportunity of the petitioner’s defense. The payment of back benefits will depend on the outcome of the fresh inquiry.

Sets aside 2018 removal order of excise dept employee; stresses need for fairness in disciplinary proceedings against civil servants

The court directed that the inquiry be conducted and completed within three months, with the petitioner required to participate fully. If there is any change of address, the petitioner must provide his new address to the competent authority to ensure timely delivery of inquiry notices, or he may collect the notice directly from the office to confirm his appearance before the inquiry officer.

The petitioner, Muhammad Abid, was appointed as naib qasid in the excise & taxation department, Dera Ismail Khan, in 2011. An anonymous complaint was received against him, containing various allegations. An inquiry officer was tasked with investigating the charges and instructed to submit a report within three days.

However, the inquiry was concluded after five months. Ultimately, Mr Abid was exonerated, but his salary was withheld. He then filed a writ petition in Peshawar High Court (PHC), which on Nov 28, 2017, directed the department to release his salary.

In retaliation, the excise & taxation officer seized the attendance register and stopped the petitioner from marking his attendance to create a false case of absence. Subsequently, an explanation was demanded on Oct 10, 2017, alleging that the petitioner had been absent from duty since Oct 3, 2017, despite the fact that he had been performing his official duties.

Once again, an inquiry was conducted, and based on a biased report, the petitioner was removed from service on Nov 8, 2018.

A departmental appeal was filed, but after the lapse of the prescribed period, the petitioner approached the KP Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal on Dec 9, 2020.

In his judgement, Justice Mazhar observed at times it appears, beyond any shadow of doubt, that lapses or flaws were committed deliberately in departmental inquiries to give an undue advantage to the accused so that if the inquiry was turned down on technical defects, the only beneficiary would be the accused.

“An inquiry into charges of misconduct is a serious matter; the whole career and livelihood of an employee/civil servant are at stake. Therefore, the departmental inquiry must be conducted with proper application of mind and due process, not in haste, carelessly, or with the intention of victimising the accused, even if the allegations are unproved,” the judgement observed.

It added that all judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative authorities must exercise their powers with a judicious and even-handed approach, ensuring justice is delivered in accordance with the law and without violating the principles of natural justice.

“It is the prime duty of the inquiry officer to provide the accused with a fair opportunity to defend himself against the charges. If a witness is produced against the accused, the latter must be allowed to cross-examine that witness in his defense,” the judgement stated, regretting that this fundamental safeguard was absent in this case.

Published in Dawn, September 17th, 2025