MUHAMMAD ZAFAR IQBAL Versus ASSISTANT CHIEF ORDNANCE
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his dismissal from service for misconduct. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the departmental inquiry conducted against the petitioner suffered from legal infirmities, specifically the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, the failure to furnish copies of witness statements, and insufficient time to respond to the charge-sheet. The Supreme Court held that sufficient grounds were made out to grant leave to appeal to examine whether the inquiry suffered from legal infirmity warranting interference. The key principle laid down is that a civil servant facing disciplinary proceedings must be afforded adequate procedural safeguards, including the right to cross-examine witnesses and receive copies of witness statements.
- Whether an inquiry held against a civil servant suffers from legal infirmity if he is denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses?
- Is a civil servant entitled to copies of statements of witnesses during a departmental inquiry?
- Does failure to provide sufficient time to reply to a charge-sheet vitiate dismissal from service?
ORDER
AJMAL MIAN, J: ‑‑ This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 23‑8‑1993 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Appeal No. 526(0) of 1992 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20‑7‑1992 of his dismissal from service passed by Chief Ordnance Officer, on the ground of misconduct referred to in the charge‑sheet dated 14‑6‑1992 dismissing the same. The, petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. In support of the above petition, Mr. M. Bilal, learned ASC appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that while conducting enquiry against the petitioner, he was not given any opportunity to cross‑examine the witnesses, nor he was furnished with the copies of the statements of the witnesses as requested by him in his application at page 36 of the paper book; nor he was given sufficient time to file the reply to the charge‑sheet. In support of his above submission he has placed reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court dated 4‑12‑1991 rendered in PLD 1994 SC 275=1994 PLC (C.S.) 612 (Shamimuddin v. Superintendent of Post Offices, Mirpur Khas Circle and others).
3. We are inclined to grant leave to consider, whether the enquiry held against the petitioner on the basis of which the impugned order of his dismissal was passed suffered from any legal infirmity as to warrant interference by the Tribunal or by this Court. Leave is, accordingly, granted.
A.A./M‑2023/S Leave granted.