FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 2 Others vs ABDUL RAZZAQ
This petition arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which accepted the respondent employee's appeal against his removal from service. The respondent, initially joining as a Lower Division Clerk and later promoted as an Assistant, faced disciplinary proceedings involving adverse Annual Confidential Report entries and a departmental inquiry. Although an inquiry was conducted, a copy of the inquiry report was not provided to the respondent before adverse action was taken against him. The core legal question was whether failing to supply a copy of the inquiry report to the accused employee violates the principle of a reasonable opportunity of defense. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal correctly found that the mandatory requirement of providing the inquiry report had been ignored, thereby denying the employee a reasonable opportunity of defense. The Court affirmed the reinstatement order with the option for the authorities to proceed afresh in accordance with the law, upholding the established principle that failure to furnish an inquiry report vitiates the disciplinary proceedings.
- Does the failure to provide a copy of the inquiry report to an employee violate the requirement of a reasonable opportunity of defense?
- Can authorities initiate fresh departmental proceedings after a removal order is set aside due to procedural non-compliance?
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is justified in reinstating an employee when mandatory legal requirements of an inquiry are ignored?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-This is a petition against the judgment and order dated the 22nd December, 1981 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, passed in Appeal No. 83-P of 1979.
2. Respondent Abdul Razzaq joined the service as Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Financial Adviser (Air Force) on 24-9-1966 and was subsequently promoted as Upper Division Clerk on18-12- 1972 and later on as Assistant on 29-5-1976. The same year some adverse entries were recorded in his A. C. R. By his immediate superior. He made a representa--petition for the expunction of the adverse remarks, which was turned down. On 15-8-1977 he was served with a charge-sheet and was asked to explain the charges detailed therein, and at the same time the Controller of Accounts (Air Force) was appointed as Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the respondent. The Inquiry Officer after holding the inquiry and giving full opportunity to the respondent to participate in the proceedings, submitted his report but a copy thereof was not provided to the appellant.
3. The respondent (appellant before the Tribunal) filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The appeal was accepted by the learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment holding: "Since the inquiry report was not shown to the appellant, he did no know anything about adverse findings of the inquiry report. The appellant would, therefore, be deemed not to have been given a reasonable opportunity of defence. These mandatory requirements of taw having been ignored, the appellant shall be deemed to have been re-instated in service with effect from the date be was removed from service. However, the respondents have the option of proceeding against the appellant afresh if they so desire after satisfying the require--ments of law which had been earlier overlooked."
4. As the principle laid down in the case of Syed Mir Muhammad v. N: W. F. P. Government (PLD1981SC 176) has been correctly followed by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment, we do not consider there is any force in this petition, which is, consequently, dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD ALI KHAN and another Versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS POLICE 2006 PLC(CS) 826
- KHALIDA RAZI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 1993 PLC(CS) 10
- MUHAMMAD PERVEZ vs SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAWALPINDI And 2 Others 1987 PLC (C.S.) 528