Date: June 19, 2025
Bench: Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb
Case: Malik Muhammad Ramzan v. Commissioner Sargodha Division & Others (Civil Petition No. 2768-L of 2022)
Background
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of Pakistan set aside the dismissal of a Punjab civil servant accused of embezzlement, citing violation of natural justice and failure to conduct a proper inquiry under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA Act).
Malik Muhammad Ramzan, the petitioner, had been dismissed from service in February 2016 on charges of cheque forgery and misappropriation of funds. His departmental appeal and revision were rejected, and the Punjab Service Tribunal upheld the dismissal in January 2022.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- He was never served any show-cause notice or associated with any regular inquiry.
- At the time of the alleged proceedings, he was in police custody/jail and could not attend hearings.
- The inquiry officer and complainant were the same person, creating bias.
- He was acquitted in a parallel criminal case based on the same allegations.
Respondents’ Position
- The Punjab government argued that the petitioner was served notices and given an opportunity to defend himself.
- Acquittal in the criminal case, they claimed, had no bearing on departmental proceedings due to different standards of proof.
Supreme Court’s Findings
Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, writing for the bench, found:
- No Evidence of Due Process: No record showed that the petitioner was ever served with a show-cause notice or associated with an inquiry.
- Procedural Violation: Sections 9 and 10 of the PEEDA Act were not followed.
- Conflict of Interest: The inquiry officer was also the complainant and signatory of the allegedly altered cheques, yet no action was taken against him.
- Unproven Allegations: Cheques were never sent to a handwriting expert, and no concrete evidence was produced.
Decision
- Petition allowed; converted into appeal.
- The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner.
- Directed the department to conduct a de novo inquiry within three months, ensuring the petitioner’s right to be heard.
