No Inquiry Needed: SC Upholds Firing of Civil Servant Over Absenteeism

By Khudayar Mohla

2 min read

September 5, 2025

ISLAMABAD – While addressing two key legal questions in service matter whether a regular inquiry was necessary and if treating the absence as Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) was a form of punishment, top court upheld termination of civil servant saying there is no need to conduct regular inquiry for an admitted absence from duty.

The Supreme Court has upheld the termination of a civil servant, ruling that a regular inquiry is not required for an admitted absence from duty. The court’s decision was made in the case of National Bank of Pakistan v. Zahoor Ahmed Mengal, as detailed in the judgment dated December 30, 2019, from the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta.

The matter involved a civil servant case whose service was terminated without a formal inquiry after he was found to be absent from his post. The period of absence was treated as EOL without pay.

The Law Today Pakistan has learnt that in its verdict, the court cited previous judgments, including Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Division, Islamabad vs. Mamoon Ahmed Malik (2020 SCMR 1154), to assert that a regular inquiry is not needed when the fact of absence is admitted, as there are no disputed facts to be investigated.

The court also referenced the cases of NAB through its Chairman vs. Muhammad Shafique (2020 SCMR 425) and Kafyat Ullah Khan vs. Inspector General of Police, Islamabad and another (Civil Appeal No.1661 of 2019).

Based on these precedents, it concluded that treating an unauthorized absence as EOL is not a punishment. Instead, it is a justified administrative action that an employer is entitled to take.

The ruling sets a clear precedent: in cases of admitted absence from duty, a regular inquiry is not mandatory, and the conversion of the absence period to EOL without pay is a legitimate action, not a punitive measure.