IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, C.J. 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 3525 OF 2018 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 18.07.2018 
passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in 
Appeal No. 285/2017) 
 
Fayyaz Hussain 
…Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
Executive District Officer (Education), City District Government, 
Rawalpindi and others 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehmood Ahmad Sheikh, AOR 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Not represented 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
10.03.2021 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this petition 
under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has called in question the judgment 
dated 18.07.2018 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, 
whereby the Service Appeal filed by him was dismissed and the 
major penalty of “removal from service” was maintained.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that petitioner 
while serving as EST Teacher in Government Boys Elementary 
School, Darnoian, Tehsil Kotli Sattian was proceeded against under 
Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 
2006, for the charges of (i) misconduct, (ii) willful absence from duty 
since 01.09.2008, and (iii) non-production of service record. The 
District Education Officer (M-EE), Rawalpindi i.e. competent 
authority after dispensing with the regular inquiry issued show 
cause notice to the petitioner. He was also served three notices for 
personal hearing but he did not appear before the competent 
authority rather his brother appeared on his behalf. Ultimately, the 
Civil Petition No. 3525 of 2018 
2
competent authority dismissed him from service vide order dated 
04.06.2010. The petitioner then filed departmental appeal before the 
Executive District Officer (Education), Rawalpindi being appellate 
authority, who vide order dated 11.06.2012 reinstated the petitioner 
into service and directed the District Education Officer (M-EE) to 
proceed against him on the charge of absence from service after 
fulfilling all codal formalities including personal hearing. After 
remand, an inquiry was conducted wherein the charge of absence 
against the petitioner was found proved, hence, the competent 
authority vide order dated 14.10.2016 awarded him major penalty 
of removal from service with effect from 01.09.2008 i.e. the date 
from which he absented himself from duty. The departmental appeal 
filed by the petitioner stood rejected by the appellate authority vide 
order dated 16.12.2016. Being aggrieved, he filed Service Appeal 
before the Punjab Service Tribunal but it also met the same fate vide 
impugned judgment dated 18.07.2018. Hence, this petition seeking 
leave to appeal.  
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended 
that while imposing major penalty of removal from service, the 
competent authority did not comply with the provisions of Punjab 
Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006; that 
the inquiry officer had observed that as the petitioner has been 
reinstated by the appellate authority, the inquiry on the same 
charges is not justified, therefore, the learned Punjab Service 
Tribunal without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter 
has wrongly dismissed the appeal.  
4. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at 
some length and have perused the record.  
5. 
 
It is admitted position that the petitioner remained 
absent from duty for a period of eight long years without obtaining 
any leave from the department. The record shows that he went 
abroad. It is on record that in the earlier departmental proceedings, 
he was issued three notices for personal hearing but instead of 
personally appearing before the competent authority he sent his 
brother. His absence was confirmed by the Head Master of the 
School where the petitioner was serving. The competent authority i.e. 
District Education Officer (M-EE), Rawalpindi had also visited the 
Civil Petition No. 3525 of 2018 
3
school and found the petitioner absent from duty. Despite that to 
meet the ends of justice, de novo proceedings were directed to be 
carried out against the petitioner on the charge of absence. An 
inquiry officer was deputed to probe into the matter, who found the 
petitioner guilty of the charge. The petitioner was also heard by the 
competent authority in person and after that major penalty of 
removal from service was imposed upon him. Learned counsel for 
the petitioner did not dispute the fact of absence but he tried to 
make out a case by contending that while imposing major penalty of 
removal from service, requisite codal formalities were not fulfilled. In 
view of the above when an inquiry was conducted, petitioner was 
personally heard and was provided full opportunity to present his 
case, it cannot be said that the department had not fulfilled the 
requirements 
provided 
under 
Punjab 
Employees 
Efficiency, 
Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. Even otherwise, it is now 
well settled that where the absence from duty is admitted, there is 
no need to hold regular inquiry. This Court in a recent judgment 
reported as National Bank of Pakistan Vs. Zahoor Ahmed (2021 
SCMR 144) while relying on an earlier judgment of this Court has 
held as under:- 
“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) 
 
6. 
 
So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the 
petitioner that when the inquiry officer had observed that the inquiry 
on the same charges is not justified, the competent authority ought 
to have refrained from passing the impugned order is concerned, 
suffice it is to state that the findings of the inquiry officer are not 
binding on the competent authority and secondly, when the inquiry 
officer had found that “all the allegations lodged against accused 
are proved beyond any doubt”, no benefit could be given to the 
petitioner. Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan specifically mandates that “an appeal to the Supreme 
Civil Petition No. 3525 of 2018 
4
Court from a judgment, decree, order or sentence of an 
Administrative Court or Tribunal shall lie only if the Supreme Court, 
being satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law 
of public importance, grants leave to appeal.” No such question of 
law of public importance within the meaning of aforesaid Article 
212(3) of the Constitution has been raised by the learned counsel for 
the petitioners, calling for interference by this Court. 
7. 
 
For what has been discussed above, this petition 
having no merit is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is 
refused.   
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
10th of March, 2021 
Not Approved For Reporting 
Khurram