Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 4595 = 2026 SLD 4595 = 2026 PLJ 395
Supreme Appellate Court, Pakistan
C.P. No. 3691 of 2024
Presented By: Shahid Waheed, Ms. Musarrat Hilali and Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, JUDGES
Mr. Shahid Qayyum Khattak, ASC for Petitioner [through video-link from Peshawar]. Mr. Muhammad Bashar Naveed, Additional Advocate-General, KP. a/w M. Farman, DSP (Legal), Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed, SSP/ Dy. Commandant, FRP, KP for
Respondents. Date of hearing: 05.05.2026.

AMIR WASEEM--Petitioner

VERSUS

PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICER/INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PESHAWAR and others--Respondents

Law: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal Act, (I of 1974)

Section: 4

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal Act, 1974 (I of 1974)-- ----S. 4--Constitution of Pakistan 1973, Art. 185--Service appeal--Partially accepted/allowed--Major penalty converted to minor penalty--Stoppage of two increments for two year--Period of remained out service considered as leave without pay--Appellant filed application for transfer to his home district--No answer a fake & bogus transfer letter issued--Issuance of charge sheet--Removed from service--Challenge to--Departmental appeal--Rejected--Challenge--Service appeal--No independent had been brought on record--No witnesses examined--No link with allegation was proved--Balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence--This Court had held that in departmental inquiries, standard of proof is based on balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence and not a strict proof beyond any reasonable doubt--Mere submission of an application for his transfer/posting to his home district could not be treated as an element of guilt against petitioner, as said application was a request before competent authority and was not impermissible--In absence of any material establishing a nexus between petitioner and alleged misconduct, inference of guilt drawn against him and consequent penalty could not be sustained in law--The very foundation required to sustain any penalty is missing--learned Tribunal, despite recording absence of any direct role of petitioner, proceeded to maintain a reduced penalty, which was not only disproportionate but also legally untenable--In absence of a proven charge, even a minor penalty could not be justified--Impugned judgment, therefore, fails to meet test of proportionality and could not be sustained--Appeal allowed.                                                                [Pp. 398, 399 & 400] A, B & E No misconduct established-- ----Where no misconduct is…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register