PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has stayed disciplinary proceedings against a senior academician and former acting director of Area Study Centre, University of Peshawar (UoP), Prof Shabir Ahmad Khan, on account of alleged irregularities in certain appointments.
A bench consisting of Justice Wiqar Ahmad and Justice Inamullah Khan issued notices to respondents including the vice-chancellor of UoP, Board of Governors of Area Study Centre and its dean Prof Salman Bangash, seeking their comments within a fortnight to a petition filed by Dr Shabir, challenging the issuance of a show-cause notice to him and initiating inquiry against him.
The petitioner has sought declaration of the court that the issuance of show-cause notice and statement of allegations to him issued on May 14, 2026, as without lawful authority and illegal.
He requested the court to declare that the respondent (Dr Salman Bangash) was not competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. He said that the impugned proceedings were not traceable to any lawful authority under Area Study Centre Act, 1975, or the applicable Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules.
Petitioner terms issuance of show-cause notice to him as illegal
He sought the court’s declaration that a fact-finding committee, earlier stood dissolved pursuant to a meeting of BoG on June 14, 2024, could not lawfully submit any report, recommendation or finding against the petitioner, nor could any disciplinary proceedings be founded thereupon.
Barrister Syed Saad Ali Shah appeared for the petitioner and stated that his client was a BPS-21 professor and former acting director of Area Study Centre. He stated that the centre had been operating without a regular director for more than six years, despite being a statutory institution governed under Area Study Centres Act, 1975.
Barrister Saad stated that the petitioner had assumed charge as acting director of the centre in Mar 2018, being the senior-most professor of the centre and discharged his functions in accordance with institutional requirements.
He said that during the petitioner’s tenure as acting director, certain appointments were made in the centre through institutional recruitment process and were processed through relevant administrative, scrutiny and selection mechanisms of the centre.
He argued that the said appointments were earlier examined by an inquiry committee constituted by the then vice-chancellor of UoP, Prof Mohammad Idrees, which found the appointments to have been made in accordance with applicable rules of the centre.
The counsel pointed out that despite the earlier inquiry, the same appointments were again taken up under the cover of the 46th meeting of BoG held on June 1, 2023, setting aside the earlier findings without any reason and constituting another fact-finding committee to probe the matter. He said that as the committee failed to submit its report in the stipulated time of a fortnight, the 47th meeting of BoG was held on June 14, 2024, under the chairmanship of the then VC, during which the said committee stood dissolved, following which the panel had no lawful existence.
Barrister Saad said that subsequently the dissolved fact-finding committee report was placed before the 49th meeting of BoG on Jan 8, 2026, purportedly authorising disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and authorised the respondent No.6 (Dr Salman) to issue the impugned show-cause notice to him.
He contended that the charge-sheet and statement of allegations had been framed and signed by the said respondent, who was neither appointed as director of Area Study Centre nor lawfully serving as its acting director.
He argued that disciplinary proceedings against a senior BPS-21 professor and former acting director could not be initiated by a person having no lawful competence to do so.
The counsel stated the 46th meeting of BoG, held on June 1, 2023, had entrusted the acting charge of director to the VC, and not to the person, who later issued the charge-sheet.
He questioned the competency of the person, who issued the charge-sheet. He argued that the committee, which had already stood dissolved, could not be resurrected through allegedly reissued minutes and then used to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
Published in Dawn, July 29th, 2026