1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 28‑7-1996 of the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Camp at Lahore, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, passed in Appeal No.93(L) of 1996, filed by the respondent against the stoppage of increments permanently for two years by an order dated 18‑1‑1996, allowing the same for the following reasons:‑‑ "

6. From the circumstances narrated in the preceding paragraph it comes out that the proceedings initiated against the appellant on the complaint by Mr. Ahmad Hussain Chauhan were not free from bias. The Inquiry Officer gross violated the Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The persistent demand of the appellant to allow him an opportunity to produce defence witness was not listened by the Inquiry Officer. Reiteration of the grievance before the authority remained unattended and undecided. The appellate order is also silent on this point. In the` circumstances the inquiry report is quite illegal and the impugned order passed on the basis of the findings of the Inquiry Officer cannot be sustained. Therefore, this appeal is accepted and the impugned order dated 18‑1‑1996 is set aside." The petitioner Railways have, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal. 2.???????? In support of the above petition Mirza Masood‑ur‑Rehman, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioners, has contended that since the charges were proved against the petitioner on the basis of record, it was not necessary to have provided an opportunity to the respondent to produce evidence in defence. On the other hand, Rana Muhammad Sarwar, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent/caveator, has urged that the respondent had the right to produce the evidence under the relevant rules as well as on account of the well‑settled principle of Natural justice. 3.???????? The reasons found favour with the Tribunal reproduced hereinabove do not suffer from any legal infirmity. It is not true to say that the charge is proved without providing an opportunity to the person charged with to produce evidence in defence. The inquiry Officer acted under misconception of law by taking the view that it was not necessary to provide opportunity to the respondent to produce evidence in defence, though he requested for the same. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infir1iitty. Leave is refused. A.A./I‑2/S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? Leave refused.