MUHAMMAD ZAFAR IQBAL vs ASSISTANT CHIEF ORDNANCE and others
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had upheld the petitioner's dismissal from service by the Chief Ordnance Officer on grounds of misconduct. The petitioner challenged the dismissal, contending that the departmental enquiry was procedurally flawed. Specifically, the petitioner alleged that he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, was not provided with copies of witness statements despite a formal request, and was not granted sufficient time to file a reply to the charge-sheet. The petitioner relied on precedent regarding the necessity of fair enquiry procedures. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the core legal question to be resolved is whether the enquiry proceedings suffered from such legal infirmities as to warrant judicial interference. The Court identified the necessity of examining whether the denial of procedural safeguards, such as cross-examination and access to witness statements, vitiated the dismissal order.
- Does the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during a departmental enquiry constitute a legal infirmity?
- Is a dismissal order vitiated if the accused is not provided with copies of witness statements requested during the enquiry?
- Does the failure to grant sufficient time to reply to a charge-sheet invalidate a disciplinary dismissal?
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.