1990 PLP 1241 (SCMR)

M.S.Rakhshani, Assistant Advocate‑General and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on-Record (absent) for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th September, 1989. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J: ‑‑Leave to appeal was granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution to examine whether the departmental enquiry under the Police Rules resulting in the reduction of the rank of the appellant was vitiated for the reason that he was not given a copy of the Enquiry Report when the final show‑cause notice was issued to him and he was also not informed of the charges proved against him.

2. The Appellant who was serving as Assistant‑Sub‑Inspector at Railways Police Station, Mach (Balochistan), was nominated for the 7th Basic Anti -Terrorist Squads Training, 1984 Course, and was spared for that purpose on 29‑8‑1984 but instead of reporting for the Course he reported to the Doctor of the Railways Hospital and got a Certificate of his indisposition. He also visited Quetta during that period without the permission of his superiors. He was charged. A departmental enquiry was held and after a show‑cause notice he was reduced in rank. The two grievances which have been noted in the Leave granting order were taken up before the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal on examination of the facts observed as hereunder:‑ "The personal hearing afforded to the appellant in itself was a sufficient opportunity of being heard. In these circumstances, we are of the view that failure to supply the inquiry report in this case has not prejudiced the defence in anyway." On merits the Tribunal held as hereundcr:‑ "The medical certificates have not been accepted by the departmental authorities and rightly so because the appellant attended as an out‑door patient and was not $o ill and as to be unable to move about and to proceed for the course. It cannot be a mere coincidence that on both the occasions the appellant fell ill. It has also not been explained to our satisfaction as to why the appellant visited Quetta without the permission of the Superintendent of Police." The appeal was, therefore, dismissed.

3. Mr. Basharatullah, Advocate the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the decision given in Syed Mir Muhammad v. Government of N.‑W.F.P. P L D 1981 S C 176, the handing over of a copy of the enquiry report at the stage of the show‑cause notice or before it was mandatory and non‑compliance with it vitiated the enquiry itself. It has been further urged that in the show‑cause notice it was not made clear as to which of the charges had been proved as a result of the enquiry.

4. The decision in Mir Muhammad's case does not lay down an absolute proposition of law that the enquiry gets vitiated in every case where a copy of the report is not supplied. On the contrary it was held that the proceedings have to be conducted in a manner that no prejudice in the process is caused to the civil servant facing the charges. In this case the charges were factual, simple and straightforward and there was contemporaneous record to bear out the facts. The Service Tribunal as well as the department authority have correctly held that the appellant was in a position to move about while indisposed and he could report for the course and there submit himself for medical examination or absence on medical grounds, if in fact he was not in a position to attend the course. The p appellant was granted a personal hearing by the competent authority after the show‑cause notice had been served on him and this was sufficient opportunity for him to ascertain the result of the enquiry and to make submission with regard to it. The Tribunal has, therefore, on facts held correctly that. no prejudice has in the process been caused to the appellant and that the punishment awarded was also not such as to merit interference by the Service Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. A.A./K‑137/S Appeal dismissed.