Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2024 IHC 185843
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Shahid Mahmood vs NHA etc.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2024 IHC 185843. In this matter between Shahid Mahmood and NHA etc., the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb DECISION DATE: 03-OCT-2024 CASE NO: Writ Petition-1265-2023 CITATION: 2024 IHC 185843 PARTIES: Shahid Mahmood VS NHA etc. LAW / SECTION: - SUBJECT: Service, Promotion REMARKS: A BPS-19 GM of NHA is aggrieved of his supersession from promotion. ============================================================ JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
W.P. No.1265 of 2023
W.P. No.3364 of 2013 Muhammad Shahid Versus National Highway Authority and others
Akhtar Hussain Shah Versus Oil and Gas Development Company Limited and another
Date of Hearing: 30.09.2024 Petitioner by: Mr. Moazzam Habib, Advocate. Respondents by: Mr. Mehraj Tareen, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. ____________________________________________________________________ MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J :- Through the instant writ petition the petitioner, Muhammad Shahid, impugns office order dated 06.02.2023 issued by the National Highway Authority (“NHA”) whereby his promotion to BS -20 was deferred on the sole ground th at there is a departmental inquiry pending against him. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although a charge sheet and show cause notice have been issued to the petitioner but the departmental proceedings have not culminated in any adver se order; and that it is well settled law that mere pendency of departmental proceedings cannot be a ground for deferring an employee’s promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the writ petition to be allowed in terms of the relief sought t herein. In making his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments reported as 2012 PLC (C.S.) 1043 and 2017 PLC (C.S.) Note 31. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for NHA submitted that it is not disputed that the pe titioner’s case for promotion was deferred due to the pendency of two inquiries under the National Highway Authority (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975; that in the inquiry proceedings, charge sheets have already been issued to the petitioner; and that in terms of Rule 7(e) of the Civil 2 W.P.No.1265/2023
Servants Promotion (BS -18 to BS-21) Rules, 2019 and clause 2.7 of the National Highway Authority Administrative Manual, 2002, pending inquiries can be an adequate ground to defer an officer’s consideration for promotion . Learned counsel for the NHA prayed for the writ petition to be dismissed. 4. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. 5. The instant writ petition was filed on 02.04.2023. Office order dated 16.05.2023 issued by NHA shows that the disciplinary proceedings that were initiated against the petitioner through charge sheet dated 08.11.2022 culminated in the imposition of minor penalty of withholding of incre ment for four years besides with holding of promotion for two years . It appears that the petitioner had filed a departmental appeal against the said penalty. Vide office order dated 05.12.2023, the said penalty was modified by the appellate authority to the minor penalty of withholding of increment for one year and censure. 6. It is well settled that the imposition of a minor penalty cannot impose as an obstacle for the consideration of an officer for promotion. Reference in this regard may be made to the law laid d own in the case s reported as 2016 PLC (C.S.) 1099, 2007 SCMR 1767, 1998 SCMR 552 , and 1991 SCMR 1673. Therefore, the imposition of the said penalty cannot be a valid ground to deny the petitioner’s consideration for promotion. 7. Apprehending arrest by the National Accountability Bureau (“NAB”) in inquiry No.282078, the petitioner had obtained pre - arrest bail from Accounta bility Court No. I, Balochistan, Quetta through bail application No.12/2023. Order dated 14.02.2024 passed by the said Court shows that a fter the investigation officer made a statement that the petitioner was not required for further probe and that no warrants for his arrest had been issued, the petitioner withdrew his application for bail before arrest. Since t here is nothing on the record to show that any 3 W.P.No.1265/2023
inquiry is being conducted against the petitioner or any reference has been filed against him by NAB, his consideration for promotion cannot be denied. NHA , in its written comments , has also not made any reference to an inquiry against th e petitioner before NAB. 8. The written comments filed by NAB show that another charge sheet had been issued to the petitioner on 30.11.2022. This charge sheet and the statement of allegations do not overlap with the dis ciplinary proceedings against the p etitioner which had culminated in the above referred office order dated 05.12.2023. The inquiry proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the said charge sheet dated 30.11.2022 are still pending. In these circ umstances, the question that needs to be answered is whether this Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing NHA to consider the petitioner for promotion regardless of the pending inquiry. 9. It is not disputed that the terms and conditions of the petitioner’s service with NHA are governed by N HA’s Regulations for Appointments, Promotions and Transfers . These Regulations are a part of the Administrative Manual issued by NHA in 2002. The vires of this Administrative Manual or the above mentioned Regulations have not been assailed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition . Clause 2.7(1)(ii) of the said Manual provides that the Departmental Promotion Committee (“DPC”) may defer consideration of an employee for promotion provided that this step will be taken only if disciplinary or departmental proceedings are pending against the employee whose promotion case comes up for consideration before DPC. There is nothing on the record to show that disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to charge sheet dated 30.11.2022 have come to an end. Since t he disciplinary proceedings pursuant to charge sheet dated 30.11.2022 are still pending against the petitioner, this Court cannot ignore clause 2.7 ibid and direct NHA to consider the petitioner for promotion. 4 W.P.No.1265/2023
However, it would be appro priate for the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner to be concluded at the earliest. 10. In view of the above, the instant petition is dismissed. No costs.
(MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB) JUDGE
ANNOUNCED IN AN OPEN COURT ON 03.10.2024.
(JUDGE)
Sultan*