Feroze Akbar Khan vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry
This civil appeal challenges the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the termination of the appellant, a Senior Observer in the Meteorological Department, under the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the disciplinary inquiry conducted against the appellant was legally compliant. Upon review, the Court found that the inquiry officer had examined witnesses behind the appellant's back, denying him the fundamental right to cross-examine them, and had relied on a novel procedure contrary to statutory requirements. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and ordered the appellant's reinstatement. The Court held that disciplinary proceedings must strictly adhere to due process, specifically the right to cross-examine witnesses. The respondents were granted liberty to initiate a fresh inquiry in accordance with the law, with the issue of back benefits reserved pending the outcome of such proceedings.
- Does an inquiry officer violate statutory requirements by examining witnesses behind the back of the accused civil servant?
- Is a civil servant entitled to cross-examine witnesses during a disciplinary inquiry?
- Can a court order reinstatement if the disciplinary inquiry was conducted in violation of due process?
- Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, CJ. --- Appellant Feroze Akbar Khan has impugned judgment dated 8.3.1995 of learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad delivered in Appeal No. 126(K) whereby appeal preferred by him was dismissed.
2. The appellant was working as Senior Observer in the Meteorological Department and his services were terminated by order dated 3.5.1992 under the provisions of Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973. He filed departmental appeal before the concerned authority, which was dismissed. Thereafter he approached the Tribunal, where too, he did not succeed.
3. Vide order dated 4.12.1996, leave to appeal was granted to examine if the inquiry was conducted according to law or not.
4. Heard the appellant and Syed Zaki Muhammad, Deputy. Attorney General and perused the record.
5. The record reveals that proper inquiry was not conducted and all the witnesses were examined by the inquiry officer at the back of the appellant and the latter was not given an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses, The inquiry report is dated 11.8.1991., It is at page 20 of the paper book. According to it, the inquiry officer had gone through the relevant record and reached the conclusion that the charges against the appellant were established. This novel procedure adopted by the inquiry officer is totally against the statutory provisions on the subject.
6. In consequence, the appeal is allowed and impugned judgment is set aside. The appellant shall be reinstated in service and the respondents may, if so advised, hold fresh inquiry against him according to law: Issue of back benefits shall be decided after fresh inquiry is held. By short order of even date, in above terms we allowed this appeal and these are the reasons for the same.
Civil .