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

Tayyaba Munir, Khudayar Mohla, Supreme Court of Pakistan, Judiciary-Sponsored Orphanhood, Section 306 PPC, Death Sentence Commuted, Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, Criminal Law Pakistan, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Life Imprisonment, Vehari Murder Case, Qisas and Diyat Law

SC Coins ‘Judiciary-Sponsored Orphanhood’ Doctrine to Commute Father’s Death Sentence

Supreme Court · Criminal Law · Pakistan ISLAMABAD: While deciding a jail appeal, Supreme Court…

difference between dismissed for non-prosecution and consigned to record, Lahore High Court civil procedure ruling, restoration of suit under CPC Pakistan, administrative consignment of case file, LHC ruling on waqf graveyard land dispute, Khudayar Mohla, Lahore High Court, LHC judgment, Civil Procedure Code Pakistan, Order IX CPC, dismissed for non-prosecution, consigned to record meaning, restoration of civil suit, Justice Anwaar Hussain, waqf graveyard dispute, Pakistan civil litigation

LHC Rules ‘Dismissal for Non-Prosecution’ and ‘Consigning to Record’ Have Distinct Legal Consequences

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has held that the expressions ‘dismissed for non-prosecution’ and ‘consigned…

petroleum price hike Pakistan, fuel price litigation Pakistan, Lahore High Court petition, petrol price increase case, petroleum levy controversy Pakistan, constitutional challenge fuel prices

JAF Moves LHC, Questions Legality of Fuel Price Hike

LAHORE: In the wake of recent hike in petroleum prices, Judicial Activism Forum has invoked…