NAZIR AHMAD vs CHIEF ENGINEER (AC&R), TARBELA DAM PROJECT WAPDA, TARBELA And Another
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a service matter concerning a departmental inquiry against civil servants. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to examine several important questions of law. The core legal questions involve whether two delinquent civil servants could be jointly tried in a departmental inquiry, whether such joint trial materially prejudiced the petitioner by denying him the opportunity to cross-examine a crucial witness whose evidence was used to establish guilt, whether the contradictory stance of that witness vitiated the proceedings, and whether the Service Tribunal erred in holding that the service appeal had become infructuous after the expiration of the one-year period for which the petitioner's reduction in rank was ordered as punishment. The court's decision involves granting leave to examine these procedural and substantive fairness issues in departmental proceedings.
- Whether two delinquent civil servants could at all be jointly tried in a departmental enquiry?
- Whether such a trial has not materially prejudiced the petitioner as he was prevented from cross-examining an important witness whose evidence was utilized for arriving at the guilt of the petitioner?
- Whether the stand taken by a witness was not itself contradictory?
- Whether the Chairman of the Service Tribunal was not in error in taking the view that after the lapse of a year, the period for which reduction in rank of the petitioner was ordered as a punishment, the service appeal had become infructuous?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J: --Leave to appeal is granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution to examine the following questions of law of public importance arising in the case:-- (1)Whether two delinquent civil servants could at all be jointly tried in a departmental enquiry?
2. (2)Whether such a trial has not materially prejudiced the petitioner as he was prevented from cross-examining an important witness (Abdul Hameed) whose evidence was utilized for arriving at the guilt of the petitioner?
3. (3)Whether the stand taken by Abdul Hameed was not itself contradictory? In reply to the charge- sheet he pleaded that he had handed over the measurement book to the petitioner. Soon thereafter on 28-4-1989 he reported to the Police that the measurement book was lost while in his custody and was untraceable.
4. (4)Whether the Chairman of the Service Tribunal was not in error in taking the view that after the lapse of a year, the period for which reduction in rank of the petitioner was ordered as a punishment, the service appeal had become infructuous.