LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has held that an inquiry against a government official cannot be conducted again on the same charges for which disciplinary proceedings or show cause notice was earlier withdrawn against him.
The court passed this order in a petition of Muhammad Akram an employee of the forest department who was exonerated of charges of shortage of about 500 trees, however, the impugned show cause notice was issued to him again in an inquiry against other employees in the same matter.
The court observed that the competent authority cannot reopen the matter against the petitioner as it is settled law that one cannot be vexed twice for the same cause.
Order based on incorrect application of law doesn’t cast doubt on judge’s integrity: LHC
The court replying to the argument of a law officer that an instant petition is not maintainable, observed since the petitioner has undergone the process of earlier inquiry and hence the well-settled principle of law subsequent inquiry proceedings are illegal and unlawful.
The court said when confronted, the law officer could not deny that in the presence of an order of withdrawing show cause notice issued against the petitioner, de novo inquiry proceedings could not have been initiated against him.
The court said since there is no provision in the relevant law that empowered the respondent to review his own previous decision to withdraw the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order to re-initiate inquiry proceedings is without lawful authority.
The court, therefore, allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order against the petitioner as illegal and without lawful authority.
The court observed that once disciplinary proceedings were dropped by the respondent-authority, there was no occasion to again proceed against the petitioner for the same charges.
Such an act of authorities is against the principles of natural justice as initiating fresh proceedings did not mean that civil servants should proceed again on the same charges, which were not found correct in earlier proceedings, the court observed.
The court observed that public functionaries owe a fiduciary duty to act in good faith and discharge their duties with honesty and in accordance with the law.
Public functionaries are expected to perform their duties fairly, justly, and well within the prescribed limits of the law of the land, the court added. And if a public functionary fails to do justice with the assigned duties, his omissions and actions shall prejudice the rights and the obligations of the others, the court concluded.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024