Muhammad Suleman vs Dy. Inspector General, Pakistan Railway Police, Lahore and others
This matter concerns a service dispute involving a petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Pakistan Railway Police, who faced departmental proceedings for alleged misconduct, specifically using abusive language and violating the chain of command. The departmental authority dispensed with a regular inquiry and imposed a minor penalty of withholding one year's increment based on the charges. The petitioner challenged this action, arguing that because the charges were strictly factual and were denied in his reply to the show-cause notice, a regular inquiry was mandatory to establish the allegations. Upon review, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the legal necessity of conducting a regular inquiry when the underlying charges are factual in nature and contested by the accused. The court's decision focuses on the procedural requirement of departmental inquiries in service matters where factual disputes exist, emphasizing that dispensing with such inquiries may be improper when the charges are not admitted and require evidentiary proof to substantiate the alleged misconduct.
- Is a regular departmental inquiry mandatory when the charges against a civil servant are factual in nature and denied in the reply to a show-cause notice?
- Can a disciplinary authority dispense with a regular inquiry in service matters involving disputed factual allegations?
ORDER
SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J. --- Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner who is an ASI in Pakistan Railway Police was proceeded against departmentally for using abusive language and breaking the chain of command etc. A regular enquiry was dispensed with and he was found guilty of the charges levelled against him whereupon a minor penalty of stoppage of one year increment was imposed upon the petitioner.
2. Learned ASC says that the charges against the petitioner were strictly factual in nature which he denied in his reply to the show-cause notice and consequently a regular enquiry should have been initiated in order to establish the charges which is not the case.
3. We have heard the learned ASC and perused the impugned judgment as well as the record, leave is granted to examine whether in the circumstances, a regular enquiry should have been instituted as the charges levelled against the petitioner appear to be factual in nature.