Categories Courts Service Matter

SC Rules for Fair Inquiries: Fired Worker Gets Another Chance through De Novo Trial

ISLAMABAD – Top court has given a new chance to a government worker who was fired after a dispute over his attendance. In a major decision, the court ruled that employees accused of wrongdoing have an absolute right to question the witnesses against them. The two-judge bench, consisting of Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali, emphasized that this is a fundamental principle of a fair process. The court set aside the worker’s firing and ordered a fresh inquiry, stating that the previous one was flawed because the worker was not allowed to properly defend himself.

The case began with Muhammad Abid, a Naib Qasid in the Excise & Taxation Department. In 2011, an anonymous complaint was filed against him, leading to a five-month-long inquiry. Although he was cleared of the charges, his salary was withheld. This forced him to go to the Peshawar High Court, which ordered his salary to be released on November 28, 2017.

Abid claimed that in retaliation, an officer in the department seized his attendance register to create a false record of his absence. The department then sent him a letter on October 10, 2017, demanding an explanation for his alleged absence since October 3, 2017, even though he insists he was at work. A new inquiry was conducted, which Abid considered biased, and he was fired on November 8, 2018. His appeals to the departmental and service tribunals were unsuccessful, leading him to the Supreme Court.

According to verdict in the matter, the top court focused on two main legal points: the purpose of a show-cause notice and the right to cross-examine witnesses. A show-cause notice is a formal letter giving a person a chance to explain their side of the story before any action is taken against them. The court called this a “sine qua non” (a necessary condition) for a fair process.

The core of the judgment, however, was about cross-examination. The judges declared that an employee’s right to question the witnesses against them is an “inalienable and undeniable” right, meaning it cannot be taken away. The court said that without this right, the accused is deprived of a proper defense. The judges explained that cross-examination is the most important tool to find the truth and check if a witness’s testimony is trustworthy. They warned that without it, a witness might be making false claims due to personal grudges, and the entire inquiry would be legally flawed.

As a result, the court not only canceled Abid’s termination but also ordered a “de novo” (new) inquiry to be completed within three months. The payment of his back benefits will depend on the outcome of this new inquiry, in which he is required to participate.

Author

Khudayar Mohla, Managing Partner Mohla & Mohla, Founder of the Law Today Pakistan,

Managing Partner at Mohla & Mohla - Advocates and Legal Consultants, Islamabad, Founder of The Law Today Pakistan (TLTP) Newswire Service. Former President Press Association of Supreme Court of Pakistan with over two decades of coverage of defining judicial moments - including the dissolution and restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Asif Ali Zardari NAB cases, Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani contempt proceedings, Panama Papers case against Mian Nawaz Sharif, matters involving Imran Khan, and the high treason trial of former Army Chief and President Pervez Musharraf. He now practises law and teaches Jurisprudence, International Law, Civil and Criminal Law. Can be reached at: mohla@lawtoday.com.pk

More From Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

Khudayar Mohla, Sindh High Court, SHC Karachi, Federal Investigation Agency, FIA Pakistan, Pest Management Services (Private) Limited, Methyl Bromide import, illegal Indian imports, Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry, Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho, Enquiry No. ENQ-ACC-KHI-1/26, Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1950, Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974, Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance 1971, Section 160 CrPC, writ petition dismissal, jurisdictional challenge, forged import permits, trade with India, Anti-Corruption Circle Karachi, pesticide import regulations, chemical smuggling investigation, Paras Ali Lodhi, Saddam Hussain Chang, Shazia Hanjra Deputy Attorney General, Department of Plant Protection, Pakistan trade law, industrial chemical enquiry.

SHC Upholds FIA Jurisdiction in Probe into Prohibited Chemical Imports

KARACHI: While dismissing a plea seeking directives against the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), a division…

Khudayar Mohla, Supreme Court Pakistan, Sindh High Court contempt case, contempt of court Pakistan, preliminary hearing requirement, Article 204 Constitution Pakistan, Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003, Supreme Court verdict 2026, SHC orders set aside, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hira Rauf case, Mushtaq Ahmed case Pakistan, procedural law Pakistan, prima facie case law, contempt proceedings Pakistan, judicial procedure Pakistan, intra court appeal Pakistan, legal lapses in court orders, due process in contempt cases, Pakistan judiciary news, Supreme Court rulings Pakistan, constitutional law Pakistan, legal rights of accused contemnor

SC Sets Aside SHC Verdict, Rules Preliminary Hearing Mandatory Before Framing Charge in Contempt Proceedings

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has set aside Sindh High Court orders in a contempt matter,…

khudayar Mohla, Justice Jawad Hassan,Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed, Sheikh Rasheed Umrah travel ban, Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench, LHC Rawalpindi verdict, Anti-Terrorism Court Pakistan, Section 28-A Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, ATA passport impoundment, Justice Jawad Hassan, Justice Tariq Mahmood Bajwa, Intra Court Appeal Pakistan, ICA No 76 2025, Division Bench LHC, passport impounded by operation of law, freedom of movement Article 15 Constitution Pakistan, reasonable restriction fundamental rights Pakistan, Provincial National Identification List, PNIL Pakistan, Exit Control List Pakistan, ECL Pakistan, no estoppel against law Pakistan, judicial estoppel Pakistan, writ petition LHC, constitutional jurisdiction High Court Pakistan, Additional Attorney General Pakistan, Federal Investigation Agency Pakistan, FIA passport impounding, anti-terrorism law Pakistan, charge-sheeted accused travel ban Pakistan, ATC permission travel abroad, Umrah travel permission Pakistan court, legislative intent Section 28-A, mandatory legal presumption ATA, appellate jurisdiction LHC, Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, Pakistan terrorism trial travel restrictions, criminal justice Pakistan, passport impounding terrorism accused, Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed court case, Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed 2025 2026, LHC sets aside Umrah permission, Pakistan court ruling travel ban, Pakistan High Court anti-terrorism verdict

LHC Rawalpindi Bench Sets Aside Sheikh Rasheed’s Umrah Travel Order, Rules ATC is Sole Authority for Passport Impoundment Under Anti-Terrorism Law

RAWALPINDI: While interpreting the legislative intent behind Section 28-A of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, read…