642/2023 Const. P. Fatima Noor (Petitioner) V/S Dow University of Health Science and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 24-JAN-25
Coming to the main case, it is also a well-established proposition of law that when an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court is concerned with determining whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power, and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules nor proof of a fact or evidence in the Stricto-Sensu, apply to disciplinary proceedings. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receive support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, however, that is subject to the procedure provided under the relevant rules and not otherwise, for the reason that the Court in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its independent findings on the evidence. This Court may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding is such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court may interfere with the conclusion or the finding and mold the relief to make it appropriate to the facts of each case. In service jurisprudence, the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where the appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. On the aforesaid proposition, we are fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Murtaza Shaikh v. Chief Minister Sindh (2024 SCMR 1757).Full judgment text for this case is not yet available on Pakistan Law Reports. Check the official Sindh High Court case law portal for the complete order.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.