NAZIR AHMAD vs CHIEF ENGINEER (AC&R), TARBELA DAM PROJECT, WAPDA, TARBELA and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Service Tribunal regarding departmental disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant. The core legal questions involve the procedural validity of jointly trying two delinquent civil servants in a single departmental enquiry and whether such a joint trial caused material prejudice to the petitioner, specifically regarding the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine a key witness whose testimony was relied upon to establish guilt. Additionally, the case questions the consistency of the evidence provided by said witness, who offered contradictory statements regarding the custody of a measurement book, and whether the Service Tribunal erred in declaring the service appeal infructuous after the expiry of the one-year period of the punishment (reduction in rank). The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions of law of public importance, focusing on the principles of natural justice, the right to cross-examination in disciplinary proceedings, and the procedural requirements for departmental enquiries involving multiple accused persons.
- Can two delinquent civil servants be jointly tried in a departmental enquiry?
- Does a joint departmental trial prejudice a civil servant if they are prevented from cross-examining a witness whose evidence is used to establish their guilt?
- Does a service appeal become infructuous after the expiry of the period for which a punishment of reduction in rank was ordered?
- 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) 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) 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) 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.