1981 PLP 1160 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 24th November 1980. MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-The petitioner an employee of the Military Accounts Department was promoted as Superintendent in the year, 1965. A preliminary inquiry was held against him on three allegations and on the basis of the report the competent authority decided to hold a formal inquiry under rule 6-A of the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1960.He was served with a charge-sheet on 18-5-72 and Mr. M. A. Jabbar P. M. A. S. was appointed the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner contested the charge and Mr. S. H. Haqqi, J. C. M. A. proceeded to hold the inquiry having been appointed in succession to Mr. M. A. Jabbar. The Inquiry Office found the charge of inefficiency and misconduct proved against the petitioner and he was ordered to be removed from service on 26-5-76. 2.The petitioner filed an appeal which not having been disposed of he was obliged to move the Service Tribunal, Islamabad under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act of 1973. 3.While this appeal was pending action was taken on the appeal submitted by him earlier to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, and the removal was converted into compulsory retirement from service. The Service Tribunal rejected his appeal on 3-1-1978. Hence this civil petition for special. Leave to appeal.

4. Learned counsel submits that since Mr. S. H. Haqqi had conducted the preliminary inquiry he could not be appointed Inquiry Officer to hold the formal inquiry against him. We asked the learned counsel to place before us the law on which he based this submission. He was not able to do so and he only submitted that Mr. Haqqi had made up his mind during to the course of the preliminary inquiry and he could not be treated as an unbiased person - and could, therefore, not hold the formal inquiry: This submission is based on the misunderstanding that the Inquiry Officer holding the preliminary inquiry has to give a finding. He is not required to do such a thing. All that he is required to do is take down the evidence of persons connected with the charge and to forward it to the competent authority who would then decide whether on the basis of the evidence so recorded a formal inquiry and a charge-sheet is called for or not. Mr. Haqqi could not, there fore, by any stretch of imagination, be called biased person.

5. It was also submitted that he was not given a personal hearing. The Tribunal has found that he was given personal hearing by the Inquiry Officer on 28-I-74 when he declined to produce any evidence in his defence. This submission of the learned counsel is, therefore, not based on facts.

6. It has also been submitted that the documents taken introduction were not got produced by appropriate witnesses who were the Custodian of that record. We asked the learned counsel if the Code of Civil Procedure or the Cr. P. C. was applicable to the proceedings. This not being so and there being any provision in the Service Inquiry Codes, which require the pro duction of documents by appropriate persons, the manner in which the documents were produced was not justifiable.

7. This petition has no merit and is , therefore dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. Petition dismissed.