Law: Punjab Government Educational and Training Institutions Ordinance, 1960

Section: 18(2)(e)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 4 ,10-A

Punjab Government Educational and Training Institutions Ordinance (XI of 1960)---

----S.18(2)(e)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.4 &10-A---Cadet College, Hasanabadal---Departmental proceedings on the basis of previous bad record---Fact finding inquiry---Non-mentioning of relevant law in show-cause notice under which it had been issued---Dispensation of regular inquiry without assigning any reason---Non-observance of procedure in cases calling for major penalty---Infliction of major penalty of compulsory retirement---Dismissal of departmental appeal and review filed by the petitioner---Validity---In exercise of powers conferred on it by S. 18(2)(e) of the Punjab Government Education and Training Institutions Ordinance, 1960 (Ordinance), Board of Governors was pleased to frame, with the approval of the Government of the Punjab, "Cadet College, Hasanabdal Employees' Efficiency and Discipline Regulations (Regulations)---Regulation deals with penalties, whereas Regulation prescribes procedure for inquiry in case of inefficiency, misconduct and corruption---Neither regular inquiry had been conducted by the authority, nor any reasons had been recorded for dispensing the regular inquiry, however, show-cause notice transpired that some fact-finding inquiry was conducted prior to its issuance, which in no way was sufficient to justify the dispensation of regular inquiry---Term "Show-Cause Notice" in the departmental proceedings can be equated with First Information Report (F.I.R.) in a criminal case---"Show-Cause Notice" is meant to state the grounds for launching departmental proceedings against the employee, thus, it is necessary that a show-cause notice must be worded properly and in an unambiguous manner, stating the nature of the allegation(s)/charge(s) to which the accused/employee has to respond---Petitioner had not been confronted with any allegations/charges specifically except his previous conduct---No provision was cited under which show-cause notice was issued and no procedure prescribed in the Regulations had been followed at all---Petitioner was awarded major penalty but without holding any regular inquiry---Though it was discretionary with the department to dispense with the regular inquiry in the facts and circumstances of the case but such dispensation had to be backed by some compelling justifiable reasons, assigned in writing, which were lacking in the case, thus, petitioner had been deprived of his vested right of fair trial as guaranteed under Arts. 4 and 10-A of the Constitution---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

       Federation of Pakistan through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue FBR House, Islamabad and others v. Zahid Malik 2023 SCMR 603 and Raja Muhammad Shahid v. The Inspector General of Police and others 2023 SCMR 1135 ref.