P L D 1957 (W (PLP)

MUHAMMAD BACHAL, J.

The petitioner was a Super intendent in the Pakistan Legation at Jeddah on the 26th May 1952. On the 23rd January 1954, the Government of Pakistan in the Cabinet Secretariat issued orders that departmental enquiries against gazetted officers were in future to be conducted by an officer on special duty appointed by them and not by the Ministries themselves and appointed Mr. S. F. Meerza an Enquiry Officer for disciplinary cases arising under the Civil Services Classification (Control and Appeal) Rules. On the 26th January 1954, Mr. S. M. Murshad, Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was directed to proceed to Jeddah and was authorised to draw up departmental proceedings. On the 5th February 1954, he came to Jeddah and on the next day he put some questions to the petitioner. Under the rules the charges should be framed by an officer who is competent to award suitable punishment. But on the 7th February 1954, he gave him a charge sheet. The petitioner submitted his reply on the 9th February 1954. Eight witnesses were examined on the 13th February 1954, and the petitioner was transferred to Karachi. On the 4th March the petitioner was given notice with the findings of the Enquiry Officer to show cause why he should not be dismissed from Government service. On the 10th March he made a request for inspection of documents on which the findings of the. Enquiry Officer were based to prepare his defence. On the 18th March he was informed that his request could not be granted at that stage. He repeated the request on the 29th March and draw the attention of the Foreign Secretary to the fact that the enquiry was not conducted by tile officer on Special Duty and charge was not framed by the Foreign Secretary. On the 17th May, the petitioner was dismissed as his explanation was found not satisfactory, though no such explanation was given. The petitioner appealed to the Governor-General on the 10th November 1954. On the 2nd May 1955, the Public Service Commission observed that the enquiry officer had expressed an opinion prejudicial to the accused before he was asked to hold the enquiry. He should not have therefore been entrusted with the enquiry in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience. However the Commissioner did not advise that a fresh enquiry should be held. On the 30th May 1955, he was re-instated and reduced to the grade of an Assistant. On the 25th June 1955, the order was varied by stating that the reversion was to take effect from the 18th May 1954 and on the 17th August 1955, he was informed that his reversion was permanent. On the 17th September 1956, after the writ petition in March 1956, the order was varied that his reversion would be for three years. It is contended that as the enquiry officer had expressed an opinion prejudicial to the accused before he was asked to hold the enquiry, the proceedings are vitiated by reason of his bias. The Public Service Commission brought this fact to the notice of the Government and the petitioner stated that the enquiry should be entrusted to the Enquiry Officer appointed on the 23rd January 1954. We consider that the bias is apparent from the fact that the petitioner was refused inspection of documents on which the findings of the enquiry officer were based. Though no question of demanding production or inspection of documents, can arise in terms of the Classification Rules we consider the the principles of natural justice do cast a duty upon the Government to specify and produce for inspection the documents asked for and relevant to enable an officer to defend himself. We consider that the rules of natural justice demand that the enquiry officer should be a person with an open B mind, a mind which is not biased against the delinquent Echeralu v. Mersey Docks and Harbourd Board ((1894) 2 Q B 667) ; R. v. Sussex Justices ((1924) 1 K B 256) ; R. v. Pand ((1866) 1 Q B 230: (1926) A C 586) : R. v. Camborne Justices ((1954) 2 All. E R 850) ; King v. Essex Justices ((1927) 2 K B 475) ; R. v. London County Council (66 L T 168:(1931) 2 K B215) ; Cooper v. Silson ((1937) 2 K B 309). He should not have prejudged the issue. In Ghulam Rasul v. The Crown (P L D 1951 F C 62) Legal Remembrancer advising Crown to file appeal against order of acquittal was subsequently appointed Judge of High Court and the appeal was decided by a Bench of which he was a member. Their Lordships held that the constitution of the Bench was illegal. The same principles would apply to administrative tribunals. In this case the Deputy Secretary was closely associated with that branch of the Ministry which had correspondence with the petitioner against whom he had given his opinion, giving rise in the mind of the petitioner to an apprehension that the course of justice will be deflected. We, therefore, hold that this is a fit case in which the writ should be isssued against the respondent as prayed in clause (a) of para. 32 of the petition. This is without prejudice to the appointment of a proper Enquiry Officer. The respondent will bear the costs of the petitioner. A. H. Writ issued.