LAHORE: The Supreme Court has ruled that the departmental inquiry should not be conducted in a cursory manner or perfunctory manner in which the stake of the employee is much higher than the employer.

The apex court further observed: “if any callous and reckless approach is opted for violating the procedure and or declared the employee guilty without observing the codal formalities of principles of natural justice or right to fair trial/due process, the ultimate sufferer would be the employee who will lose his job”.

A two-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, made these observations in a judgement, which allowed petitions of Syed Baqir Riffat Gardezi, Ejaz Ahmad and Abdul Hameed Khan Khosa against the decisions of the Punjab Service Tribunal (PST).

The petitioners were officials of the Housing Urban Development & Public Health Engineering Department (HUD&PHED). While posted in Dera Ghazi Khan, they were accused of committing irregularities and were imposed millions of rupees of penalties.

Sets aside PST decision against three HUD, PHED officials

Advocate Hafiz Tariq Nasim, representing Mr Gardezi, contended that the inquiry conducted by the department was defective and the penalty of the huge amount was imposed without providing proper opportunity of defence. He submitted that everything was replied in response to the show-cause notice but the said penalty had been imposed without being taken into consideration.

Assistant Advocate General of Punjab Khalid Masood Ghani supported the penalty and submitted that the appellants were dealt with under the Peeda Act 2006.

However, the counsel for the petitioners argued that the inquiry was defective and neither the appellants were provided fair opportunity of defence nor were their replies considered.

In its judgement, the bench held that the inquiry officer must perform his duties with care and caution and provide a fair opportunity of defence to the delinquent rather than concluding it in a slipshod manner.

The bench said: “no doubt the inquiry officer cannot be equated with a trained judicial officer but at least the procedure provided for guidance should be adhered to”.

Allowing the petitions, the bench set aside the impugned decisions of the PST.

Published in Dawn, December 19th, 2025