LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has held that a government employee should be given a fair opportunity to contest charges levelled against him before he is found guilty.
The court observed that the principles of natural justice required that no person is penalized unjustly without being given an opportunity to present his complete defence.
The court said the allegation of misconduct levelled against the delinquent could not be proved without conducting a regular inquiry, especially when a major penalty is going to be imposed.
The court said authenticity or otherwise of the disputed facts cannot be considered without conducting a fair and regular inquiry.
The court passed this order in a petition of an employee of the General Hospital of Lahore, Shafique, challenging the termination of his service.
The court held that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is in violation of Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act.
The impugned order of the termination of the petitioner from service is alien to the Act, the court added.
While dispensing with the regular inquiry, logical reasons must be mentioned by the competent authority, but in this case inquiry has been dispensed with in a whimsical manner, the court added.
The court also noted that the respondents proceeded against the petitioner in a stereotypical and perfunctory manner and imposed on him the major penalty of termination from service which is not warranted under the law.
The court said the allegations levelled in the show-cause notice issued against the petitioner on the face of it could not be proved against the petitioner without proper inquiry.
The court noted that no reason has been mentioned by the competent authority in the show cause-notice to dispense with the inquiry but has proceeded against the petitioner only on the basis of opinion which is unwarranted under the law.
The court said when the petitioner had denied the allegations levelled against him, the right of confrontation is provided under Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution and further u/s 10 of the Act, right of cross-examination is available to the petitioner to prove his innocence, but it was denied arbitrarily, the court added.
The court said the impugned orders suffer from illegality, and setting the impugned order aside reinstated the petitioner in service.
The court directed the competent authority to conduct a regular inquiry into the allegations leveled against the petitioner under the law and decide the issue of back benefits of the petitioner.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026