Pakistan Case Law
1986 SCMR 234

NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1986 SCMR 234
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 430 of 1984
Date1985-10-20
Judge(s)Aslam Riaz Hussain, Actg. C.J., Abdu1 Kadir Shaikh, and S.A. Nusrat
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the dismissal of the respondent from service at the National Bank of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the departmental enquiry proceedings were vitiated by the denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses. The High Court had found that although the Enquiry Officer examined numerous witnesses, the respondent was denied the opportunity to cross-examine them, and their statements were subsequently used against him. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming that the record supported the finding that the respondent was denied this essential right. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that in departmental enquiries, the failure to provide an accused employee the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are used against them renders the resulting dismissal order illegal and without lawful authority.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the failure of an Enquiry Officer to allow an accused employee to cross-examine witnesses render a dismissal order illegal?
  • Is the right to cross-examine witnesses a mandatory requirement in departmental enquiry proceedings?
departmental enquiryright to cross-examinationdismissal from servicenatural justiceservice lawconstitutional petition

1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J,--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 31-1-1984 allowing a constitution petition filed by respondent and in result setting aside the orders of his dismissal from service with the direction that petitioner-Bank may hold fresh departmental enquiry against respondent in accordance with law, if so advised. The reasons which prevailed with the learned Judge in the High Court for allowing the constitution petition may be reproduced in his words as under:- "Since, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am inclined to accept the petition on short legal point, I need not set out the facts giving rise to the charge sheet and need not discuss the merits of the case. I find (as admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent) that although the Enquiry Officer had examined numerous witnesses but he did not give any opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine them. The statements of the witnesses, which are without cross- examination have been used and acted upon against the petitioner. Since the petitioner was entitled to the right of cross-examination, as a matter of right, and this right has not been given to him, therefore, there is no alternative but to declare the impugned orders to be illegal and without lawful authority. Resultantly, the impugned orders are declared to be of no legal effect."

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. We find that the finding of the learned Judge in the High Court that no opportunity was granted to the respondent by the Enquiry Officer to cross-examine the witnesses produced against him is fully bore out by the record. No exception can, therefore, be taken against the judgment passed by the learned Judge in the High Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Cited by 7 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.