When must a regular inquiry be held? When is a penalty disproportionate? Does acquittal in the criminal case save your job? And what do you get back on reinstatement? Our research paper studies 100 judgments of the Supreme Court and the Peshawar High Court on penalties and dismissal from service. This article summarises what they decide.

When is a regular inquiry required?

A regular inquiry can be dispensed with only for compelling and justiciable reasons recorded in writing (Senior Superintendent of Police (Operations) v. Shahid Nazir, 2022 SCMR 327). It cannot be dispensed with where the facts are disputed (Chief Engineer, GEPCO v. Khalid Mehmood, 2023 SCMR 291; 2019 PLC(CS) 224).

An inquiry in which the officer was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself is not a "regular" inquiry (2025 SCMR 632), and where cross-examination was denied, a fresh inquiry was ordered (2025 SCMR 453). There are exceptions: an inquiry is not needed where the absence is admitted (2021 SCMR 144), or for a probationer (2020 SCMR 1401).

The show-cause notice and the personal hearing

A show-cause notice alone is not enough where the charge carries a stigma (2005 PLC(CS) 964). A major penalty requires a regular inquiry, an opportunity of defence and a personal hearing (Naseeb Khan v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, 2008 SCMR 1369). In other cases a personal hearing is needed only where the rules require it (1991 SCMR 1755; 1999 SCMR 1237).

Is the penalty proportionate?

The penalty must reflect the officer's moral culpability (Pervaiz Hussain Shah v. Secretary to Government of Punjab, Food Department, 2024 SCMR 309). The relevant factors include his past record, his length of service, his intention, and the effect on discipline (2026 SCMR 1509). The courts interfere only where the penalty is unreasonable, perverse or excessively harsh (2025 SCMR 733). Long service does not turn a dismissal for fraud into compulsory retirement (2023 SCMR 770).

Does acquittal in the criminal case save the job?

Not always. Departmental proceedings generally run independently of the criminal case (Province of Punjab v. Khadim Hussain Abbasi, 2021 SCMR 1419), and acquittal cannot be the sole deciding factor (2023 SCMR 2111). But the latest authority holds that where the officer is acquitted on the same accusation, there is nothing left for the department to decide (Ghulam Murtaza v. District Police Officer, Gujrat, 2026 SCMR 843). In our view the earlier line still applies where the department charges separate misconduct.

Absence from duty

Where the absence is admitted, no regular inquiry is required (2021 SCMR 144). A lenient view taken to avoid a break in service is not an exoneration (2025 SCMR 489). The penalty must still match how serious the absence was (2025 SCMR 708).

Reinstatement and back benefits

After an unlawful dismissal, the officer must be put back where he would have been had the unlawful action never happened (Tahir Kazmi v. Inspector General of Police, Punjab, PLD 2026 SC 145). Earnings from other employment in the meantime are adjusted (2014 SCMR 1263), and back benefits may be partly refused in proportion to the officer's own fault (2021 SCMR 962). The Peshawar High Court has applied the principle of "no work, no pay" (2021 PLC(CS) 711).

Practical checklist: for the officer

  • Where the facts are disputed, demand a regular inquiry.
  • Insist on the right to cross-examine the department's witnesses.
  • If the inquiry was dispensed with, check whether written reasons were recorded.
  • After an acquittal, show that the departmental charge is the same accusation.
  • Ask for full back benefits, and be ready to account for any earnings in between.

Practical checklist: for the department

  • Record reasons before dispensing with a regular inquiry.
  • Give the charge sheet, the evidence, the right of cross-examination and a personal hearing.
  • Match the penalty to the seriousness of the misconduct, and record why.

Read the full research paper

The full paper, with a summary of every judgment, is free to download:

📄 Download the full research paper (PDF)

For more research papers like this one, visit the Resources page:

https://arbitratorandlaw.com/resources

This article is general information on the law, not advice on your own case. Time limits can matter, so speak to an advocate promptly about your own matter.