IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, CJ 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 130 OF 2021 
 (On appeal against the judgment dated 
12.09.2019 passed by the Lahore High Court, 
Rawalpindi 
Bench 
in 
Writ 
Petition 
No. 
2436/2019) 
 
Tasawar Hussain 
 
…Appellant 
 
VERSUS 
 
Deputy Commissioner District, Jhelum and others 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant: 
Khawaja Muhammad Arif, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
For the Respondent: 
Barrister Qasim Ali Chohan, Addl. P.G. 
Mirza Muzafar Baig, Chief Officer, M.C. 
Pind dadan Khan 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
08.06.2021 
… 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this appeal by 
leave of the Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the appellant has called in question the 
judgment dated 12.09.2019 passed by the Lahore High Court, 
Rawalpindi Bench, whereby the writ petition filed by him was 
dismissed and the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon 
him was maintained.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellant 
was appointed as Chowkidar (BPS-1) in Municipal Committee, Pind 
Dadan Khan on 22.06.2002. He took leave from the department from 
01.02.2013 to 31.01.2014. During his leave period, pursuant to 
registration of a criminal case bearing FIR No. 58 dated 10.02.2013 
under Sections 302, 109, 34 PPC at Police Station Saddar Chakwal, 
the appellant absconded from the country and the leave period ended 
during his absconsion. However, he was arrested from abroad and 
ultimately, he was acquitted of the charge vide judgment dated 
Civil Appeal No. 130/2021 
-: 2 :-
28.03.2017. The appellant had to join duty on 01.02.2014 but neither 
he applied for further leave nor informed his office. During his 
absence, inquiry proceedings were conducted against him. An Inquiry 
Officer was appointed on 10.03.2015 by the Tehsil Municipal Officer, 
Pind Dadan Khan and the appellant was given charge sheet vide 
letter dated 05.05.2015. The Inquiry Officer also issued publication of 
proclamation in this regard of the appellant in newspaper on 
30.05.2015 and after inquiry proceedings vide order dated 
17.06.2015 recommended to impose penalty of removal from service 
under Section 4(b)(v) of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and 
Accountability Act, 2006. On 20.08.2015, he was further issued a 
notice to appear before the Tehsil Municipal Officer for personal 
hearing but he neither appeared nor submitted his reply. He was 
given another opportunity for personal hearing for 26.11.2015 but 
again he did not appear nor replied. Ultimately, the competent 
authority vide order dated 22.10.2015 imposed major penalty of 
dismissal from service upon the appellant from the date of his 
absence i.e. 01.02.2014. After his acquittal, he filed departmental 
appeal on 13.04.2017 against his dismissal order but the same stood 
dismissed vide order dated 10.08.2017. He, thereafter, filed 
representation 
before 
the 
Deputy 
Commissioner 
Jhelum 
on 
09.09.2017 but it also met the same fate vide order dated 
21.05.2019. The appellant challenged these orders before the Lahore 
High Court, Rawalpindi Bench by filing Writ Petition No. 2436/2019, 
which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment. Hence, this 
appeal with leave of the court.  
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contended 
that no inquiry officer has been appointed nor any inquiry has been 
conducted by the department; that the department did not follow the 
proper procedure as warranted under law; that after acquittal of the 
appellant from the criminal case, it was mandatory for the 
department to reinstate him in service; that the inquiry officer had 
recommended ‘penalty of removal from service’ but the competent 
authority without assigning any reason, awarded penalty of 
dismissal from service to the appellant, which is against the intent of 
law. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied on the cases 
of Secretary Government of Punjab Vs. Ikramullah (2013 SCMR 572) 
and Shibli Farooqui Vs. Federation of Pakistan (2009 SCMR 281).  
Civil Appeal No. 130/2021 
-: 3 :-
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General 
has supported the impugned order. He mainly contended that the 
appellant was awarded major penalty of dismissal from service due 
to willful absence of 23 months without any leave and being a public 
servant he was bound to take prior leave or inform the department 
but he did not respond in the manner as required, therefore, the major 
penalty of dismissal from service is rightly imposed upon him.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the 
learned Law Officer at some length and have perused the available 
record.  
6. 
 
It is an admitted fact that the appellant remained absent 
from duty for a long period of 23 months without taking leave. The 
only defence put by him is that as a false case was registered 
against him, therefore, due to fear of illegal persecution he absconded 
from the country. However, nothing had estopped him to at-least 
inform the department but he neither applied for leave nor informed 
his office. During his absence, the inquiry proceedings started and 
ultimately resulted in his dismissal from service on 22.10.2015. It is 
on record that the appellant was arrested through inter-pole on 
25.08.2016 whereas he was granted bail on 01.10.2016 by the court 
of competent jurisdiction. Till that time, the inquiry proceedings had 
already completed. The Inquiry Officer also issued publication qua 
absence of the appellant in newspaper and after fulfilling all 
requirements of inquiry proceedings recommended that the penalty of 
removal from service under Section 4(b)(v) of Punjab Employees 
Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 be imposed upon 
the appellant. The competent authority vide order dated 22.10.2015 
imposed major penalty of dismissal from service upon the appellant 
from the date of his absence i.e. 01.02.2014 under Section 4(b)(vi) of 
the PEEDA Act, 2006. The anxiety of the learned counsel that the 
department has not followed the legal requirements before awarding 
the penalty is without any legal justification. All codal formalities 
were duly fulfilled. Otherwise, it is now well settled that where the 
absence from duty is admitted, there is no need to hold regular 
inquiry. This aspect has been taken care of by this Court in a recent 
judgment reported as National Bank of Pakistan Vs. Zahoor Ahmed 
(2021 SCMR 144) wherein while relying on an earlier judgment of 
this Court, it has been held as under:- 
Civil Appeal No. 130/2021 
-: 4 :-
“In the face of such absence from duty of the respondent, 
which being admitted, there was no need to hold a regular 
enquiry because this Court in the case of Federation of 
Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice 
Division, Islamabad v. Mamoon Ahmed Malik (2020 SCMR 
1154), has already held that where the fact of absence 
from duty being admitted on the record, there was no need 
for holding of a regular enquiry for that there was no 
disputed fact involved to be enquired into.” 
 
(Underlined to lay emphasis) 
 
7. 
 
The crux of the arguments advanced by the learned 
counsel for the appellant mainly relates to the fact that the Inquiry 
Officer had made recommendations contrary to the penalty inflicted 
by the competent authority. To carefully consider the aforesaid legal 
contention, a deeper analysis is required to adjudicate it according to 
the dictates of justice. In ordinary circumstances, it is now settled that 
the competent authority is not under obligation to act according to the 
recommendations made by the Inquiry Officer, rather it can inflict 
penalty as it deems appropriate according to the facts and 
circumstances surfaced on the record. There is no denial to this fact 
that the Inquiry Officer had made recommendation of removal from 
service in terms of Section 4(b)(v) of Punjab Employees Efficiency, 
Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 but the competent authority 
has acted contrary to the recommendation while inflicting penalty of 
dismissal from service under Section 4(b)(vi) of the above-said PEEDA 
Act. There is no second cavil to this proposition that in both the 
eventualities, the employee has to relinquish the job but to ascertain 
the gravity of the punishment, it seems appropriate to know the 
consequence of both the penalties. The penalty of removal from 
service does not debar the employee to seek re-employment and it is 
not considered as a continuous stigma but the penalty of dismissal 
from service stigmatizes the employee on permanent basis, therefore, 
in all fairness the penalty of dismissal from service is placed at a 
higher pedestal as far as gravity of the punishment is concerned. It is 
established principle of law that in pursuance of the dictates of 
natural justice and fairness, while enhancing the penalty to a severe 
degree, assigning of the reasons seems to be more judicious, 
equitable and it further glorifies the judicial system. Hence, we are in 
agreement with the argument of learned counsel for the appellant 
that while enhancing the penalty, the competent authority is under 
legal obligation to assign judiciable reasoning. As far as the 
Civil Appeal No. 130/2021 
-: 5 :-
judgments of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the 
appellant are concerned, they further fortify the view expressed by 
us, therefore, the present appeal to this extent is justified. As a 
consequence, the enhancement of the penalty of removal from service 
into dismissal from service is declared not sustainable in the eyes of 
law and coupled with appellant’s length of service and the fact that 
he has already suffered hardship, we deem it appropriate to modify 
the penalty of dismissal from service into removal from service.  
8. 
 
For what has been discussed above, this appeal is partly 
allowed and the impugned judgment is maintained with the 
modification of punishment as referred in the preceding paragraph.   
 
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
8th of June, 2021 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram