JUMA KHAN vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and anothers
The petitioner, an Assistant Director in the National Training Bureau, sought leave to appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that upheld a penalty of censure imposed upon him. The disciplinary proceedings originated from the misplacement of an official file regarding the procurement of a plain paper copier, leading to charges of procedural non-compliance, lack of coordination, and irresponsible conduct. Following an inquiry and a show-cause notice, the competent authority imposed the minor penalty of censure. The petitioner challenged this before the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the disciplinary inquiry was conducted in accordance with the law, specifically examining whether the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses. Additionally, the Court addressed a procedural defect in the petition's title, ruling that naming the Prime Minister of Pakistan as a respondent is legally impermissible and ordering the removal of that reference from the case title.
- Is it legally permissible to name the Prime Minister of Pakistan as a respondent in a petition before the Supreme Court?
- Does the failure to provide an opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses during a disciplinary inquiry vitiate the resulting penalty?
ORDER
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby the penalty of censure imposed on the petitioner was upheld.
2. The petitioner, an Assistant Director and one Imtiazuddin, an Administrative Officer in National Trading Bureau, Ministry of Labour, Manpower and Overseas Pakistanis, were served with a charge- sheet dated 6-6-1993 separately containing the following charges:-
(i) F. No, NTB-2(73)/91-92/GA regarding :Procurement of Plain Paper Copier' was misplaced in between Mr. Juma Khan, Assistant Director, National Training Bureau (Chairman Purchase Committee) and Mr. Imtiazuddin, Assistant Director (then Admn. Officer).
(ii) Mr. Imtiazuddin emphasised that file was handed over to Mr. Juma Khan by hand, whereas he (Mr. Juma Khan) denied of taking over the file by hand.
(iii) The system laid down by the Government for submission/receipt of files has not been observed.
(iv) Misplacement of file indicates lack of coordination and working relation between the officers.
(v) Misplacement of file indicates the irresponsible attitude."
3. After the reply was submitted by the petitioner, an Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted his report holding that the following charges were proved against the petitioner:-
(i) The file No, NTB-2(73)/91-92/GA relating to 'Procurement of Plain Paper Copier was misplaced.
(ii) The laid down procedure by the Government for submission/receipt of files was not observed.
(iii) Lack of coordination and working relation between the officers of Purchase Committee.
(iv) The officers involved in this case showed irresponsible attitude.
4. This was followed by a show-cause notice which was also replied by the petitioner in detail. The competent Authority imposed minor penalty of censure on the petitioner who made departmental representation and finally challenged it before the Federal Service Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
5. Leave is granted to consider whether the inquiry was held in accordance with law and proper opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to lead his evidence and to cross-examine the witnesses.
6. The petitioner had made Prime Minister of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad as a respondent which is not permissible under law. The words "Prime Minister of Pakistan through" shall be deleted from the title of the petition.