Concealment of Material Facts and Dismissal

SERVICE

Assad Ullah Jaral

10/1/20243 min read

Golden Gate Bridge cover with white cloudy skies
Golden Gate Bridge cover with white cloudy skies

In W.P. No. 2396 of 2024, the Islamabad High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Muhammad Nadeem Sajid, Deputy Director of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), challenging several show cause notices issued to him. The Court dismissed the petition on the grounds of concealment of material facts, particularly the petitioner's failure to disclose the existence of an earlier petition on the same subject matter filed before the Sindh High Court. The Court imposed costs of Rs. 100,000 on the petitioner for attempting to mislead the Court.

Background:

Muhammad Nadeem Sajid, serving as a Deputy Director at NAB, received multiple show cause notices from his employer, calling upon him to explain why he should not face dismissal from service. These notices, issued in 2020, 2022, and 2023, were followed by personal hearing notices in 2024. The petitioner challenged the validity of these notices, arguing that they were unlawful, vague, and not based on any substantive evidence. He further contended that an inquiry conducted in 2019 had found no cogent evidence against him.

However, during the proceedings, NAB’s counsel pointed out that the petitioner had already challenged one of the same show cause notices before the Sindh High Court in C.P. No. D-1604/2020, which was still pending. The petitioner had failed to disclose this earlier petition in the current writ petition, which led to the argument that he was attempting to mislead the Court.

Key Issues:

Concealment of Material Facts: Whether the petitioner's failure to disclose his earlier petition filed before the Sindh High Court constituted grounds for the dismissal of the present writ petition.

Exercise of Constitutional Jurisdiction: Whether the Court should exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction in favor of a petitioner who has concealed material facts from the Court.

Validity of Show Cause Notices: Whether the show cause notices issued to the petitioner were valid and in compliance with the law, particularly when considered in light of the earlier inquiry exonerating him.

Court's Analysis:

Concealment of Material Facts: The Court placed significant emphasis on the petitioner's failure to disclose the existence of C.P. No. D-1604/2020, filed before the Sindh High Court, in which he had challenged the same show cause notice dated 03.01.2020. The Court found that this non-disclosure was a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court and amounted to an abuse of the legal process. The petitioner’s certificate accompanying the writ petition, stating that no earlier litigation on the same subject matter was pending, was found to be false.

Citing precedents such as Sajjad Ahmad vs. Chairman Capital Development Authority (2016 CLC 896) and Abdur Rashid vs. Pakistan (1969 SCMR 141), the Court reiterated that concealment of material facts disentitles a litigant from seeking discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction. The Court highlighted that a petitioner who approaches the Court must do so with "clean hands" and must fully disclose all relevant facts, especially where there is concurrent litigation pending before other courts.

Exercise of Constitutional Jurisdiction: The Court held that the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is discretionary and should not be exercised in favor of a party that seeks to deceive the Court by withholding material information. The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is aimed at fostering justice and protecting the rights of honest litigants. It cannot be invoked by those who conceal material facts or abuse the legal process. The Court, therefore, refused to entertain the petitioner’s claims.

Validity of Show Cause Notices: While the Court did not delve deeply into the merits of the show cause notices, it noted that the petitioner could still respond to the notices and present his defense during the personal hearings provided by NAB. The Court observed that the issuance of show cause notices and personal hearing notices is not an adverse action in itself but an opportunity for the petitioner to present his explanation. Therefore, these notices did not warrant interference through writ jurisdiction.

Court's Conclusion: The Islamabad High Court dismissed the writ petition due to the petitioner's concealment of material facts regarding the filing of C.P. No. D-1604/2020 before the Sindh High Court. The Court held that such concealment constituted sufficient grounds for refusing to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 100,000 as a penalty for attempting to mislead the Court.

Contact Us:

For expert legal advice on employment disputes, show cause proceedings, or writ petitions, contact AUJ LAWYERS LLP. We provide comprehensive legal representation to ensure that your rights are protected throughout complex litigation.

We are here to help

Talk to our lawyers today. We tailor our services around your legal needs so that we can reach the desired outcome together.