LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has ruled that a government employee absent from duty for less than one year cannot be removed from service without strong justification.
The court stated that under Section 4 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (PEEDA), compulsory retirement, removal, or dismissal from service is mandatory only when absence from duty exceeds one year and is proven.
In cases of absence for less than one year, the court said that disciplinary authorities may impose such penalties only if supported by clear and detailed reasons. The decision must follow principles of proportionality, structured discretion, and administrative fairness.
The ruling came in response to a petition filed by Abusar Ghaffary, a computer operator with the Punjab Emergency Services Department. The petitioner challenged his removal from service for being absent from duty for 63 days.
The court allowed the petition, set aside the removal order, and reinstated the petitioner. However, it ruled that the petitioner would not be entitled to back benefits.
The judgment stated that no valid reasons were recorded to justify the major penalty of removal.
The court observed that the petitioner was removed from service under Section 4(1)(b)(v) of PEEDA without a regular inquiry, which was waived under Section 5(1). In such cases, the process outlined in Section 7 must be followed.
The court also noted that the respondent failed to exercise discretion in a structured manner, as required by the principles of proportionality.
The petitioner’s lawyer argued that under Section 7(f)(ii) of PEEDA, if the absence from duty is less than one year, major penalties like removal or dismissal from service cannot be imposed.
The court pointed out that although the removal order referred to the petitioner’s previous service record and penalties, the petitioner was not informed or charged based on that record in the show-cause notice. It held that using the past penalties as grounds for the current removal amounts to double jeopardy.
The court said the petitioner’s reinstatement would be subject to a fresh determination by the competent authority. Any future penalty must be based on the seriousness of the misconduct and include valid reasons.
