IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED 
MR. JUSTICE SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
 
CIVIL PETITION NOs. 3728 & 4385 OF 2017 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 03.10.2017 passed by 
the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Writ Petition Nos. 
3013-P & 3318-P of 2017) 
 
Syed Liaqat Shah  
 
 
 
 
(In both cases) 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
1. 
Vice Chancellor, University of  
Engineering & Technology, Peshawar etc 
(In CP 3728/2017) 
 
2. 
Chairman, Chief Minister Complaint & 
 
Redressal Cell, Peshawar etc  
 
(In CP 4385/2017) 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner:  
Mr. Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ahmad Nawaz Chaudhry, AOR 
 
 
 
 
 
For the Respondents: 
N.R. 
 
Date of Hearing:  
09.07.2018 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
FAISAL ARAB, J.- In December, 2014, the respondent 
University appointed the petitioner on contract basis as Project 
Director on its ongoing project of Jalozai Campus for a period of six 
months. His term of office was later extended from time to time. 
During subsistence of his last contractual tenure, he was relieved 
on 20.07.2017 in pursuance of Chief Minister’s Complaint & 
Redressal Cell Peshawar’s letter dated 13.07.2017. The Chief 
Minister’s cell wanted that the university should probe into the 
allegations leveled against the petitioner in the performance of his 
duties as Project Director. In this regard, the respondent 
constituted a three member inquiry committee.  
CIVIL PETITION NOs. 3728 & 4385 OF 2017 
2
 
2. 
 
Soon after the petitioner was relieved, he filed two 
constitution petitions in the Peshawar High Court seeking reliefs (i) 
that direction be given for the continuation of his employment as 
Project Director; (ii) that the notification whereby the inquiry 
committee was constituted be declared nullity in the eyes of law 
and (iii) the Chairman, Chief Minister’s Complaint and Redressal 
Cell be directed to stop interfering in the affairs of Federal 
Government funded projects. The said petitions were dismissed by 
the High Court on the ground that as the services of the petitioner 
were contractual, its tenure was not protected under any law. 
However, in order to ensure that no stigma is attached to 
petitioner’s performance as Project Director in his absence, it was 
directed that a proper opportunity of hearing should be given to 
the petitioner to enable him to defend himself in the pending 
inquiry proceedings. Having failed to secure any of the reliefs 
which the petitioner sought from the High Court, present petitions 
for leave to appeal have been filed.  
 
3. 
 
Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner 
though conceded that the petitioner being a contractual employee 
his employment tenure was not legally protected, it was submitted 
that now that the petitioner has been relieved from his job, it is 
strange that inquiry is being conducted against him.  
 
4. 
 
We are of the view that relieving a contractual 
employee simplicitor does not mean that any wrongdoing 
committed by him during his contractual period cannot be 
CIVIL PETITION NOs. 3728 & 4385 OF 2017 
3
inquired into. If found involved in any wrongdoing, he can still face 
civil liability or criminal action or both, notwithstanding the fact 
that he has been relieved from his contractual post. Only where 
the tenure of service of an employee is protected under a law, it 
cannot be curtailed without first initiating and completing 
disciplinary proceedings against him. However, where wrongdoing 
of a contractual employee comes to light, who is governed by the 
principle of “Master and servant”, he can be relieved of his service 
first and inquiry into his wrongdoings can commence thereafter. 
Termination of contractual employment simplicitor is no defence 
either against taking a criminal or civil action that might be 
warranted on account of any wrongdoing committed during the 
contractual period.  
 
5. 
 
It is also ludicrous to say that as the project was 
funded by Federal Government, therefore, no action could be taken 
on the basis of a report of Chief Minister’s Complaint and 
Redressal Cell. Any credible information of a wrongdoing coming 
from any source can be made basis of a legal action by the 
competent authority. Hence, where the competent authority in its 
discretion considers that there is substance in the allegation, it 
can either order a fact finding inquiry or take such other action as 
is permissible under the law. The petitioner being contractual 
employee was relieved from his office as Project Director in 
pursuance of the letter written by the Chief Minister’s Complaint 
and Redressal Cell, Peshawar and immediately an inquiry 
committee was constituted to probe into the allegations of 
wrongdoings committed by the petitioner in his capacity as Project 
CIVIL PETITION NOs. 3728 & 4385 OF 2017 
4
Director. We find no legal infirmity in the adoption of such a 
course of action. The learned High Court has already granted 
enough concession to the petitioner by directing the university to 
grant him audience in the pending inquiry.  
 
6. 
 
We, therefore, find no reason to interfere in the 
impugned judgment. These petitions having no merit are 
accordingly dismissed and leave is refused.   
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
9th of July, 2018 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
