In a significant decision, the Punjab Service Tribunal recently allowed the service appeal of Mr. Muhammad Jamil Gujjar, a Naib Qasid at the Deputy Commissioner Office, Sheikhupura, setting aside the order of dismissal dated 31.12.2024. The Tribunal reinstated the appellant, treating the intervening period as leave of the kind due.
The case arose under the PEEDA Act, 2006, following allegations of forgery, corruption, and misconduct leveled by a complainant against the appellant in the Registration Branch of Sheikhupura. The inquiry officer, after conducting proceedings, had held the appellant guilty and recommended a major penalty of dismissal, which was subsequently imposed by the Deputy Commissioner.
Represented by the highly competent Allah Nawaz Khosa, Advocate, the appellant contended that the allegations were false and baseless. Evidence on record, including a written statement by the complainant acknowledging settlement of the grievance, established that no criminal misconduct had occurred. Despite this, the inquiry officer and competent authority had ignored critical evidence and relied solely on assumptions and unverified findings to justify dismissal.
The Tribunal emphasized that both the competent authority and appellate authority are required to independently scrutinize the evidence on record. Punitive orders cannot be based merely on the recommendations of the inquiry officer, particularly in the absence of any corroborating material evidence. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the Tribunal held that the punishment in this case was wholly unjustified and lacked legal basis.
As a result, the Tribunal quashed the dismissal order and reinstated the appellant, marking a major victory for justice and due process.
The judgment also highlights the meticulous advocacy of Allah Nawaz Khosa, Advocate, whose precise and thorough legal representation was instrumental in securing this favorable outcome. His efforts underscore the importance of dedicated legal counsel in safeguarding the rights of public servants against arbitrary and unlawful administrative actions.
This decision serves as a strong precedent, reinforcing that disciplinary actions must be grounded in verified evidence and proper procedural safeguards, ensuring fairness and justice in public service.
