LAHORE: An internal inquiry initiated by the Lahore High Court has recommended a minor penalty of `censure` on four members of janitorial and services staff at the Judges Rest House, GOR-I for using `forbidden` croclcery while a Christian waiter among them has been issued a final show-cause of dismissal from service on another charge of `misconduct` The charges stem from an incident on Dec 3, 2024, where the accused staffers were found using crockery designated for the `honourable judges` while having lunch in Suite No. 6 of the Rest House, despite prior warnings.

The staff members named in the inquiry include Samuel Sandhu (bearer/waiter), Faisal Hayat (dusting coolie), Shahzad Masih (sweeper), and Muhammad Imran (counter staff).

In their defence, the ofHcials said they were having lunch in plates meant for gunmen and drivers of the judges. Sandhu also denied the charge of misbehaving with his seniors.

According to the inquiry report,waiter Sandhu also displayed inappropriate and disrespectfulbehavior towards his seniors when confronted about the matter.

The inquiry officer, Additional Registrar (Examinations), Usman Ali Awan, found Sandhu guilty of misconduct and recommended the major penalty of `Removal from Service` under Rule 23 (6) of the High Court Rules & Orders.

While the other accused staff members admitted to using the crockery and were recommended for a minor penalty of `Censure` Sandhu`s alleged aggressive attitude and use of rude language were deemed enough to warrant removal.

It noted that evidence, including witness testimonies and video footage, supported the charges against him.

The final notice issued on July 11 provides Sandhu with 10 days to respond and defend him.

His failure to do so will result in the presumption that he has no defense to offer, leading to the imposition of the recommended major penalty. The report also cites witness statements and video evidence to support the misconduct charges against Sandhu.While the inquiry focuses on administrative discipline, the case has sparked legal and ethical debate.

A lawyer said the disproportionate treatment of the Christian staffer, if proven discriminatory, raises questions under Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.

`If all accused committed the same basic act of violating crockery use rules, and only one-belonging to a religious minority-is singled out for removal, it could be viewed as discriminatory. The inquiry must ensure procedural fairness,` he said.

Although the complainant/caretaker reiterated that a number of times instructions have been passed to the staff, an LHC official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that no clear written policy about crockery restrictions was visible in the Rest House, adding that the rules were often enforced arbitrarily.

He said the case underscores the needfor clearinternal protocols and equal application of disciplinary procedures to prevent both misconduct and perceptions of bias, particularly in highly sensitive environments like judicial premises.