SHAHID UL QAYYUM And Others vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Through Secretary, Economic Affairs And StatisticsDivision, Government Of Pakistan, Islamabad And Other
This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified disciplinary penalties imposed on a civil servant, Shahid ul Qayyum. The petitioner challenged the imposition of any penalty, arguing that the Tribunal's findings—that the air-conditioner in question was indeed installed in the office and that the petitioner's only fault was a procedural failure to obtain written approval—negated the justification for punishment. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the inquiry proceedings were vitiated because he was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses. The Federation of Pakistan also filed a petition challenging the same judgment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal in both petitions, determining that the contentions regarding the lack of justification for the penalty and the procedural irregularity of the inquiry process, specifically the denial of the right to cross-examine, raised substantial questions of law requiring further consideration by the Court.
- Does the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during a departmental inquiry vitiate the entire proceedings?
- Can a disciplinary penalty be sustained when the findings of the Service Tribunal indicate that the alleged misconduct was merely a procedural lapse?
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---The abovementioned to petitions seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 12-6--1994 whereby order of the departmental authority imposing on the petitioner Shahid ul Qayyum major penalty of reduction to the lower post of Assistant Incharge for a period of three years and minor penalties of censure, withholding of next annual increment for a period of 3 years and recovery of loss of store items, has been modified so as to reduce the penalties to "that of "stoppage of to increments" for the period of 2 years with cumulative effect."
2. Learned counsel appearing in support of Civil Petition No. 405 of 1994 contends that the Service Tribunal having found that the air-conditioner purchased by the petitioner was installed in the office, and therefore, the only fault of the petitioner was that "he did not obtain written approval of the officer under whose directions, the A.C. Was purchased" and that it was not proved whether the petitioner was directly responsible for the shortage of store, there was no valid basis/justification for awarding any penalty to the petitioner. It is further contended that in view of the finding of the Service Tribunal that the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, the inquiry stood vitiated with the result that it could not form the basis of any penal action against the petitioner. Contentions raised need consideration and leave is accordingly granted in Civil Petition No.405 of 1994.
3. Leave is also granted in the connected petition (C.P. No.446 of 1994) filed by Federation of Pakistan as the judgment impugned therein is the same which forms the subject-matter of Civil Petition No,405 of 1994.