INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF RAILWAY POLICE and others vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Inspector-General of Railway Police against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside an order imposing a penalty of permanent stoppage of increments for two years upon the respondent. The core legal question was whether an inquiry officer in disciplinary proceedings is legally obligated to allow the accused official an opportunity to produce evidence in their defence, even when the charges are allegedly supported by the record. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the inquiry proceedings were flawed due to bias and a gross violation of procedural fairness. The Court held that the inquiry officer acted under a misconception of law by denying the respondent the right to produce defence witnesses. The key principle laid down is that disciplinary inquiries must adhere to the principles of natural justice, specifically the right of the accused to present a defence, and that an inquiry report based on the denial of this opportunity is legally unsustainable and cannot form the basis for a penalty.
- Is an inquiry officer in disciplinary proceedings required to provide the accused official an opportunity to produce evidence in their defence?
- Can a disciplinary order be sustained if the inquiry officer denies the accused the right to present defence witnesses?
- Rule 16.24, Punjab Police Rules 1934
ORDER
' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 28-7-1996 of the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Camp at Lahore, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, passed in Appeal No,93(L) of 1996, filed by the respondent against the stoppage of increments permanently for two years by an order dated 18-1-1996, allowing the same for the following reasons:- "6. From the circumstances narrated in the preceding paragraph it comes out that the proceedings initiated against the appellant on the complaint by Mr. Ahmad Hussain Chauhan were not free from bias. The Inquiry Officer grossly, violated the Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
The persistent demand of the appellant to allow him an opportunity to produce defence witness was not listened by the Inquiry Officer. Reiteration of the grievance before the authority remained unattended and 'undecided. The appellate order is also silent on this point. In the circumstances the inquiry report is quite illegal and the impugned order passed on the basis of the findings of the Inquiry Officer cannot be sustained. Therefore, this appeal is accepted and the impugned order dated 18-1-1996 is set aside."
' The petitioner Railways have, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. In support of the above petition Mirza Masood-ur-Rehman, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioners, has contended that since the charges were proved against the petitioner on the basis of record, it was not necessary to have provided an opportunity to the respondent to produce evidence in defence.
' On the other hand, Rana Muhammad Sarwar, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent/caveator, has urged that the respondent had the right to produce the evidence under the relevant rules as well as on account of the well-settled principle of postural justice.
3. The reasons found favour with the Tribunal reproduced hereinabove do not suffer from any legal infirmity. It is not true to say that the charge is proved without providing an opportunity to the person charged with to produce evidence in defence. The quiry Officer acted under misconception of law by taking the view that it /was not necessary to provide opportunity to the respondent to produce evidence in defence, though he requested for the same. The impugned judgment/does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Leave is refused.