IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT:  
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB  
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
 
Civil Petition No.733 of 2018 
(Against the judgment dated 17.01.2018 passed by 
the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Writ Petition 
No. 4783-P of 2016).  
 
Directorate General Emergency Rescue Service  
1122 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar. 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
versus 
Nizakat Ullah. 
 
 
 
 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the petitioner(s): 
Mr. Sikandar Rashid, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, AOR. 
 
For the respondent(s): 
N.R. 
 
 
 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
22.02.2019.  
 
O R D E R 
 
 
IJAZ UL AHSAN, J. - The petitioner seeks leave to 
appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, 
Peshawar, 
dated 
17.01.2018. 
Through 
the 
impugned 
judgment, while allowing a constitutional petition filed by the 
Respondent, his dismissal from service was set aside and he 
was directed to be reinstated with all back benefits. 
 
2. 
 
The Respondent was appointed as an Emergency 
Medical Technician on 15.03.2010 in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 
Emergency Rescue Services 1122. On 31.03.2015, he was 
suspended from service and an inquiry was initiated against 
him. He was issued a show cause notice on 29.04.2014 
Civil Petition No.733 of 2018 
 
2
leveling certain allegations against him including misbehavior 
with higher officials and sending them abusive SMS 
messages. The Respondent denied the allegations whereafter 
considering his response unsatisfactory, he was dismissed 
from service vide order dated 01.06.2015. His departmental 
appeal was decided, after a direction was issued by the High 
Court. The said appeal was dismissed by the department, vide 
order dated 16.06.2016. 
 
4. 
 
The Respondent challenged his dismissal from 
service through a constitutional petition which was allowed in 
the aforenoted terms. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal. 
 
5. 
 
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits 
that there was sufficient material on record to establish 
misconduct on the part of the Respondent. He maintains that 
the Respondent was a habitual offender and even previously 
he had been dismissed from service. However, he was 
restored under the orders of the High Court. He further 
submits that even after his reinstatement into service, his 
attitude did not improve and he continued to misbehave and 
threaten his senior officers in consequence of which he was 
suspended and after a transparent inquiry, from which the 
Respondent intentionally absented himself, he was dismissed 
from service.  
Civil Petition No.733 of 2018 
 
3
6. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the 
petitioner at some length and carefully gone through the 
record. The terms and conditions of service of the Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa Emergency Rescue Services are regulated by 
Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa 
Emergency 
Rescue 
Services 
Regulations, 2015 and the matter of termination from service 
is dealt with by clause 43 of the same. Clause 45(2) of the 
Regulations provides that no employee shall be dismissed 
from service by an authority subordinate to that by which he 
was appointed. Further, Section 50 of the Regulations sets 
out acts/omissions that constitute misconduct on the part of 
the employees. 
 
7. 
 
We find that the allegation against the Respondent 
was that he had sent abusive and threatening SMS messages 
to 
Director 
(Operations), 
DG 
(Operations) 
and 
the 
Administrative 
Officer 
and 
had 
generally 
indulged 
in 
disorderly behaviour. It was stated that he had violated the 
undertaking which he had given prior to joining Rescue 
Services as well as the West Pakistan Essential Services 
(Maintenance) Act, 1958. It was alleged that the Respondent 
had quarreled with his senior officers and thereafter had sent 
them threatening SMS messages. However, unfortunately 
neither any material by way of evidence was placed on record 
nor was the Respondent provided an opportunity to cross-
Civil Petition No.733 of 2018 
 
4
examine any witness that the petitioner may have produced. 
Further, there was no evidence that the Respondent had 
misbehaved with any body or refused to perform his duty as 
Emergency Medical Technician. So much so that no evidence 
even of obnoxious SMS messages allegedly sent to his senior 
officers was placed on record.  
 
8. 
 
Where an employee is to be removed from service, 
which action obviously carries a stigma with it, he is entitled 
to due process which includes fair opportunity to defend 
himself, cross-examine the witnesses and produce evidence in 
his defence. Further, he must be confronted with the material 
on the basis of which he has been issued show cause notice. 
We find that the Respondent was deprived of his due process 
rights. He was not confronted with the material on the basis 
of which the show cause notice had been issued to him and 
he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses who 
were produced by the petitioner.  
 
9. 
 
Even otherwise, the process followed by the 
petitioner was sketchy, one sided, non transparent and not 
supported even by the Regulations and the law. We therefore 
find that the High Court was justified in passing the 
impugned judgment and recorded valid and cogent reasons 
for doing so. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not 
been able to persuade us to hold otherwise or to interfere in 
Civil Petition No.733 of 2018 
 
5
the impugned judgment, which is based upon the record and 
correct application and interpretation of law on the subject.  
 
10. 
 
For reasons recoded above, we do not find any 
merit in this petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. 
Leave to appeal is refused.   
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
ISLAMABAD. 
22.02.2019 
Not Approved For Reporting 
ZR/* 
 
