livelawpk.com - The Competent Authority’s earlier decision to Demote ---

The Competent Authority’s earlier decision to Demote the Petitioner could not later be Substituted with Removal from Service solely due to a Fresh Inquiry --- Lahore High Court, Lahore

14 hours, 33 minutes
8

The Competent Authority’s earlier decision to Demote the Petitioner could not later be Substituted with Removal from Service solely due to a Fresh Inquiry --- Lahore High Court, Lahore

Islamabad 04-04-2025: In a significant ruling on procedural fairness in disciplinary matters, the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, has allowed the Writ Petition of a former Head Clerk at the Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship Training (RDAT), Multan, setting aside his removal from service and directing the Competent Authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment without exceeding the previously imposed penalty.

The case centered on whether an authority, after initially imposing a lesser punishment (demotion) for misconduct, could subsequently inflict a more severe penalty (removal from service) following a remand by the appellate forum for a de novo inquiry especially when the remand was due to procedural lapses and not the discovery of new or graver misconduct.

Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain, authoring the judgment, emphasized that while the initial inquiry recommended removal, the Competent Authority had, through an order dated July 31, 2023, imposed the lesser penalty of demotion for three years. This order was challenged by the petitioner and remanded by the appellate authority on December 12, 2023, for procedural deficiencies, not due to inadequacy of punishment.

Following a fresh inquiry, the Competent Authority imposed the harsher penalty of removal from service on June 28, 2024 a move the Court deemed unfair and violative of the principles of proportionality and legitimate expectation. The judge noted, “The imposition of a harsher penalty on the same set of allegations, without new evidence or charges, creates an impression of double jeopardy.”

The Court held that a public servant cannot be penalized for exercising his legal right of appeal and ruled that the punishment post-remand cannot exceed the original penalty. It further criticized the authority for failing to provide justification for deviating from its earlier stance, remarking that the doctrine of estoppel applies to public authorities in such circumstances.

As a result, the Court declared the impugned orders null and void, reinstating the case before the Competent Authority to re-decide the penalty, which must not be harsher than the original demotion.