ANEESUR REHMAN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another
This civil petition arose out of a service matter wherein the petitioner, a civil servant, was dismissed from service on charges of inefficiency and misconduct for allegedly creating fictitious refunds for a private trading corporation. The petitioner contended that he requested crucial official documents to prepare his defence, which were not provided, and that he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine official witnesses or lead his own evidence during the departmental inquiry. The learned Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal against the dismissal order. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether conducting a departmental inquiry without allowing the accused civil servant to cross-examine official witnesses or produce defence evidence violated the statutory procedural mandate under the relevant Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules. The Supreme Court observed that prima facie the petitioner was denied his right to cross-examine official witnesses and lead his defence. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and converted the petition into an appeal.
- Whether an inquiry conducted without allowing a civil servant to cross-examine official witnesses violates procedural rules?
- Whether failure to permit an accused civil servant to lead defence evidence vitiates the disciplinary proceedings?
- Does the non-provision of requested official documents essential for defence invalidate a departmental inquiry finding?
- Rule 6, Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules
SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.--- Mr. Khalid Javed, learned Advocate Supreme Court has submitted that the petitioner being a civil servant was proceeded against departmentally on the charge that he had created fictitious refunds for Messer Sidra Trading Corporation for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90. To said charge, the petitioner had requested for copies of certain documents from the official record without which he could not prepare his defence. However, the inquiry proceeded without provision of the documents requested by the petitioner in which the conclusion was reached that the afore-mentioned company was a fictitious one and hence the attempt by the petitioner to create the refunds were totally unwarranted and bogus. Consequently, the charge of inefficiency and misconduct, was established and major penalty was recommended, as a result thereof, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Service Tribunal but met without success and hence this petition.
2. In support of the petition, learned Advocate Supreme Court has submitted that the Petitioner was not given any chance to cross-examine the official witnesses and in fact he was not even allowed to lead his own evidence which is in negation of Rule 6 of the E and D Rules. Secondly, per learned Advocate Supreme Court there is sufficient evidence available on the record to establish that the company afore-mentioned was not a fictitious one and hence the charge could not be established. In support of his submission, learned Advocate Supreme Court has relied upon, Jam Manzoor Ahmad v. Director (Food), Punjab, Lahore and another 1996 SCMR 447, dMuhammad Attaullah v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and 2 others 1999 SCMR 2321, Tariq Mehmood v. District Police Officer, Toba Tek Singh and another 2008 PLC (C.S.) 921 and Naseeb Khan v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore and another 2008 SCMR 1369.
3. We have heard learned Advocate Supreme Court and perused the judgment of the learned Service Tribunal as well as report of the Inquiry Officer. Prima facie it appears that the petitioner was not given a chance to cross-examine the official witnesses and neither allowed to lead his own evidence. Consequently, we would grant leave. The petition is converted into an Appeal. To be listed in due course.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM HAYAT vs GOVT. OF PAKISTAN, etc. 2016 PLJ Islamabad 515
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM HAYAT vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others 2017 PLC (C.S.) 260