Fresh PEEDA Inquiry Can Support a Harsher Penalty on New Facts or Evidence: FCC

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

A lawful fresh inquiry is not automatically confined to the earlier penalty

The Federal Constitutional Court has set aside a Lahore High Court judgment that limited the punishment which could follow a fresh disciplinary inquiry. In Chairperson TEVTA v. Shahid Saleem, it held that earlier findings or orders do not bind the competent authority where new facts or evidence supporting a different conclusion are discussed or brought on record. Judgment, paragraphs 8–9.

Justice Ali Baqar Najafi authored the judgment dated 6 October 2026, sitting with Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan. The Court uploaded it on 28 October. The decision concerns C.P.L.A. 1333/2025 and the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA). Judgment, paragraph 1.

How the punishment changed after the second inquiry

Shahid Saleem faced departmental charges concerning official assignments, apprenticeship certificates and allegedly forged verification letters and signatures. The first inquiry recommended removal. The competent authority initially took a lenient view and imposed reduction to Computer Operator, PS-15, for three years on 31 July 2023. Judgment, paragraph 2.

The departmental appeal resulted in that penalty being set aside and a fresh inquiry being ordered. The second report, dated 25 April 2024, again recommended removal. This time the authority imposed removal and a fine of one month’s basic pay, and the departmental appellate order upheld the action. Judgment, paragraph 2.

Why the High Court’s ceiling on punishment failed

The High Court treated the fresh inquiry as a means of correcting procedural defects, rather than reconsidering the severity of punishment. It sent the matter back with a restriction that the punishment could not exceed the earlier one. Judgment, paragraph 4.

The FCC found that the reasons for that conclusion and remand had not been adequately addressed. It emphasised the seriousness of the record-tampering and certificate allegations and the adverse findings in both departmental inquiries. These were departmental findings assessed under the disciplinary framework, not a criminal conviction pronounced by this judgment. Judgment, paragraphs 4–5.

Fresh inquiry powers come with procedural safeguards

The Court referred to section 13(6), which permits a remand or de novo inquiry after written reasons where proceedings were not conducted according to the Act, relevant facts or merits were ignored, or other sufficient grounds exist. It reproduced sections 10–12 governing inquiry procedure, powers and the departmental representative’s duties. Judgment, paragraph 6.

The quoted section 10 includes examination of oral and documentary evidence and an opportunity to cross-examine a witness produced by the other side. It also states that inquiry recommendations do not bind the competent authority. The FCC found that the employee had received a proper inquiry and full opportunity of defence. Judgment, paragraphs 6–7.

The holding is conditional, not a licence for arbitrary enhancement

The central proposition in paragraph 8 is tied to new facts or evidence leading to a different conclusion. The decision should therefore be read with its findings on inquiry fairness, the record and the absence of identified mala fides. It does not declare that every fresh inquiry must result in a heavier penalty. Judgment, paragraphs 7–8.

The FCC converted TEVTA’s petition into an appeal, allowed it and set aside the High Court judgment. The restriction imposed by that judgment consequently fell away. Judgment, paragraph 9.

Frequently asked questions

Can a fresh PEEDA inquiry lead to a harsher penalty?

Yes, on the reasoning applied here, where new facts or evidence supporting a different conclusion are on record and a lawful, fair inquiry has been conducted. It is not an automatic consequence of reopening proceedings. Judgment, paragraphs 7–8.

Was Shahid Saleem convicted of a criminal offence?

This judgment concerns departmental disciplinary proceedings and the punishment imposed under PEEDA. It does not pronounce a criminal conviction. Judgment, paragraphs 2 and 5–7.

Did the FCC preserve the High Court’s punishment ceiling?

No. It allowed TEVTA’s appeal and set aside the High Court judgment. Judgment, paragraph 9.