MUHAMMAD ISMAIL SHAHID vs EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE), LAHORE and another
These appeals, by leave of the Supreme Court, arise from a common judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing appeals against the penalty of reduction in rank imposed upon the appellants pursuant to disciplinary proceedings for corruption. The core legal question is whether the disciplinary proceedings and the ensuing penalty were vitiated due to the non-supply of statements of allegations and the denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the failure to serve statements of allegations under the relevant statute and the reliance on evidence recorded prior to the regular inquiry in the absence of the appellants, thereby denying them the right of cross-examination, rendered the proceedings void and contrary to mandatory provisions of law. The Court set aside the impugned judgment, reinstated the appellants with back-benefits, and granted the department liberty to initiate a fresh inquiry in accordance with law.
- Whether disciplinary proceedings are rendered void when statements of allegations are not served upon the accused employees?
- Can evidence recorded prior to a regular inquiry in the absence of the accused be treated as valid evidence without affording an opportunity to cross-examine?
- What is the effect of denying the right of cross-examination during departmental disciplinary proceedings?
- Section 5(1)(a), Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000
' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- The above captioned appeals, with the leave of this Court, filed by Muhammad Ismail Shahid and Muhammad Sharif, appellants, arise out of a common judgment, dated 16-3-2006 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dismissing Service Appeals Nos.2612 and 2656 of 2005 preferred by the appellants.
2. Relevant facts of the case are, that while posted as Naib Tehsildar Settlement, Cantt. Lahore, appellant Muhammad Ismail Shahid demanded illegal gratification through his Reader appellant Muhammad Sharif, from one Muhammad Hussain, complainant, for attestation of mutations of complainant's land. A complainant was made to District Co-Ordination Officer, Lahore, in pursuance whereof disciplinary proceedings were initiated and appellants were served with charge-sheets. The replies of the appellants, having been found unsatisfactory, they were awarded penalty of reduction in their ranks from the post of Naib Tehsildar to Stenographer and from the post of Junior Clerk to Naib Qasid, respectively. Appellants filed departmental appeals which did not succeed. Appeals of the appellants before the Tribunal also met the same fate necessitating the filing of instant appeals.
3. Leave was granted in both the cases by order, dated 14-11-2006 to consider the contentions, inter alia, that in the disciplinary proceedings carried out by the respondents the appellants were not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the department and that adequate opportunity was also not afforded to the appellants to produce their evidence; that the statement of allegation was also not provided to them and that various contentions raised by the appellants were not attended to by the Tribunal.
4. Sheikh Masood Akhtar, Advocate representing the appellants, bitterly criticized the impugned judgment and attempted to argue that same has been recorded in a mechanical manner without application of independent judicious mind and in total disregard to the law on the point and that evidence recorded prior to the regular inquiry,in absence of the appellants, could not be treated as evidence of any worth, as a result whereof right of cross-examination has been denied to the appellants.
5. Raja M. Saeed Akram, learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab representing the respondents, on the other hand, refuted the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and supported the impugned judgment on the grounds more or less the same incorporated in the judgment itself.
6. Having heard the arguments from both sides in the light of the material on file, we find that submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants carry weight and must prevail. Learned Tribunal has erred in law and facts in dismissing the appeals of the appellants as in the Absence of service of statements of allegations, required under section 5(1)(a) of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, the proceedings were void and nullity in the eyes of law as appellants were not confronted with the same. Again the evidence recorded prior to the regular inquiry in the absence of appellants could not be treated as evidence of any value as right of cross-examining the witnesses has been denied to the appellants, resulting in manifest injustice.
We also find that inquiry was not conducted according to the mandatory provisions of law so much so statements of allegations were not supplied to the appellants to meet the charges.
7. In view of the above, appeals are allowed, impugned judgment is set aside and appellants are directed to be reinstated to their positions with all back-benefits. However, the department shall be at liberty to initiate fresh inquiry in the matter in accordance with law, if so advised. No order as to costs.
Cited by 3 cases
- Muhammad Yaqoob vs Hydro-Carbon Development Institute Of Pakistan 2021 PLC (C.S.) 740
- USMAN GHANI vs POST MASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN SINDH and others 2018 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 60
- Engineer SAMIULLAH MUGHAL vs CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN ENGINEERING 2009 PLC (C.S.) 280