LHC reinstates Lahore General Hospital security guard dismissed over AC pipe theft

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that a government employee cannot be subjected to a major penalty without a proper and lawful departmental inquiry, setting aside the dismissal of a security guard at Lahore General Hospital and ordering his reinstatement.

Justice Malik Muhammad Awais Khalid issued the 11-page written judgment on a petition filed by security guard Shafiq Khushnood, holding that an employee facing serious allegations must be given a full and effective opportunity to defend himself.

The petitioner had challenged his dismissal following departmental proceedings in which he was accused of stealing an air-conditioning pipe and remaining absent from duty.

The court observed that when serious allegations are levelled against an employee, he must be given an opportunity to respond to the charges, produce witnesses in his defence and cross-examine prosecution witnesses.

The judgment held that imposing a major penalty without completing a proper departmental inquiry was contrary to law. It noted that there was no valid or convincing reason on record for abandoning the inquiry in the present case.

While examining the provisions of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability (PEEDA) Act, the court observed that “termination” is not prescribed as a penalty under the law. Major penalties under the PEEDA Act include dismissal, removal from service and compulsory retirement, but such penalties can only be imposed after following the procedure prescribed by law.

Gujranwala: Hospital officials suspended after medicine theft

The court made it clear that merely levelling allegations against an employee does not authorise an authority to remove him from service without following the prescribed legal procedure. It said the principles of natural justice and the employee’s fundamental legal rights must be respected during departmental proceedings.

The LHC further held that an order of dismissal passed without a proper and lawful inquiry was inconsistent with the legal protections guaranteed under Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution, including the principles of due process, fair trial and fair proceedings.

Consequently, the court set aside Khushnood’s dismissal and ordered his reinstatement.

However, the court clarified that the competent authorities could initiate a fresh departmental inquiry into the allegations of theft and absence from duty, provided that the proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the law.