PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court has rejected the petition of a former University of Peshawar employee against his compulsory retirement from service on the charge of corrupt practices.

A bench consisting of Justice Ijaz Anwar and Justice Shakeel Ahmad declared that the university had dealt with petitioner Abdul Waheed in accordance with law.

The petitioner, a former caretaker on the UoP’s Bara Gali campus, had requested the court to declare illegal the March 2, 2021, order of the UoP’s vice-chancellor to award the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service to him.

He also challenged the June 21, 2022, decision of the UoP’s syndicate to uphold the decision of the vice-chancellor and requested the court to order his reinstatement with all benefits.

Action was taken against petitioner over corrupt practices

The petitioner’s counsel insisted that his client wasn’t treated in accordance with law by the university.

He contended that as the registrar of the university had received a complaint against the petitioner, he should have not attended the syndicate meeting.

The lawyer argued that the petitioner had not been provided with the opportunity of a fair trial, which was guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution.

Advocate Khalid Rehman and law officer of the university Riaz Ali Khan represented the respondents, including the vice-chancellor and the registrar, and said that the petitioner was duly associated during the course of departmental proceedings and he had even admitted his guilt before the inquiry committee, as such, after he was given right of personal hearing.

They added that the records showed that there were serious allegations of corrupt practices against the petitioner, who was entrusted with the duty of caretaker on the UoP’s Bara Gali campus.

Lawyer Khalid Rehman said that initially, the petitioner was issued an explanation letter, while a fact-finding inquiry committee was constituted.

He added that the committee held the petitioner responsible for corrupt practices and made certain recommendations against him, so he was issued a charge sheet by the authorised officer on Jan 16, 2019 and an inquiry committee was constituted.

The bench observed that it, in its constitutional jurisdiction, had only to see whether the delinquent official had been provided sufficient right of hearing during the departmental proceedings and that apparently, the delinquent official had committed the offence.

It added that as for the nature of the penalty and to what extent it was to be imposed, it was left to the discretion of the competent authority as the court could not interfere in the university’s internal administrative matters.

The bench noted that the petitioner had been provided with a sufficient opportunity and that he duly participated in the departmental proceedings.

It added that the records placed on file by the petitioner showed that when he was asked whether he knew he had committed a crime by issuing fake receipts, he admitted that he had committed “mistakes” and regretted the act.

The bench observed that the proceedings of the university’s syndicate transpired that when the appeal of the petitioner was considered, the vice-chancellor left the meeting so that the petitioner could be provided with an opportunity to vindicate himself even at the appeal stage.

Published in Dawn, September 24th, 2023