K. M. ZAKER HUSSAIN, C. S. P. vs THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH
The petitioner, a member of the Civil Service of Pakistan, challenged his compulsory retirement ordered by the President of Pakistan under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960, following an inquiry into corruption charges. The petitioner contended that the inquiry process was procedurally flawed, alleging he was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself because he was not provided with a list of witnesses or summaries of their statements, a defense witness was not called, and he was denied legal representation. The High Court dismissed his writ petition, finding that the inquiry complied with the relevant rules and that the petitioner had been afforded a full opportunity to meet the charges. Upon petition for special leave to appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the grievances and found no evidence that the inquiry officer acted contrary to the rules or that the petitioner suffered prejudice. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision, affirming that no valid grounds existed for interference with the administrative action taken against the petitioner.
- Whether the failure to provide a list of witnesses and summaries of statements in a disciplinary inquiry constitutes a denial of a reasonable opportunity to show cause?
- Does the denial of legal representation during a departmental inquiry violate the constitutional right to a reasonable opportunity of defense?
- Can a court interfere with an order of compulsory retirement where the inquiry officer has acted in accordance with the applicable disciplinary rules?
- Rule 3, Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960
- Article 98, Constitution of 1962
- Article 177, Constitution of 1962
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-The petitioner who belongs to the Civil Service of Pakistan, was compulsorily retired from service by the President of Pakistan on the 8th of June 1966, acting in the exercise of his powers under rule 3 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960. This order had followed the result of an inquiry conducted against the petitioner by Mr. D. K. Power who was appointed as an inquiry officer under the aforesaid Rules, on charges which included one of corruption and acquisition of pecuniary resources and properties dispropor--tionate to the known sources of his income. Before the order was made by the President retiring the petitioner, a formal show-- cause notice was issued to him to explain why that penalty should not be imposed. He was supplied with a copy of the report of the inquiry officer to submit his reply within 14 days. The petitioner submitted his reply which was not found satisfactory. On the 25th of June 1966, the petitioner filed a review application to the President of Pakistan, which was rejected on the 28th of July 1966. Failing in his departmental remedies, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court under Article 98 of the abrogated Constitution of 1962, in which he challenged the order of his compulsory retirement, on the ground that he had not been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against that action, as contemplated under Article 177 of that Constitu--tion. The writ petition was dismissed, leading to this petition for special leave to appeal.
2. The grievances listed in the High Court which were argued there and which have also been repeated before us are that the inquiry was marred by the defects that a list of witnesses was not given to the petitioner in advance before their examination nor was he supplied with a summary of their statements, which hindered their effective cross-examination by the petitioner, that, one Abdul Alim, who was summoned as a defence witness at State expense, was not called and that the petitioner was not allowed to be defended by a legal practitioner during the inquiry. The learned Judges of the High Court in a detailed judgment have considered `each one of these objections and have found that none of them is substantiated and that the petitioner had had a full opportunity of meeting the charges against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to tell us that the inquiry officer had taken any step during the inquiry which was not sanctioned by the Rules or he had, in any manner, acted contrary to those Rules. He has not brought any circumstance to our notice on the basis of which it may be urged that the petitioner's case was prejudiced in any manner or at any stage during the inquiry proceedings.
3. We think that no valid ground is disclosed for our interference in this matter. The petition is dismissed.