Dispensation of enquiry

2017 PLC(CS)N 100 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Misconduct and inefficiencyPenalty of reduction to a lower postDispensation of enquiryScopeFair trialScope

Employees were awarded major penalty of reduction to lower post after giving show cause notices without conducting regular inquiry

Validity

Discretion to dispense with the inquiry could not be exercised arbitrarily but honestly, justly and fairly after application of judicious mind and for substantial reasons

Nature of allegations against the accused had to be considered for such purpose

When allegations could be decided with reference to admitted record or un-rebutted evidence was available to prove the charge against the employee then procedure for regular inquiry could be dispensed with otherwise the ends of justice would demand an inquiry

Situation might arise where real fate of allegations could only be adjudged by a regular inquiry and not by mere textual proof

Employees, in the present case, had denied the allegations/charges leveled against them

No regular inquiry was conducted nor opportunity to cross-examine was provided to the employees

Authority should have ordered for a regular inquiry in circumstances

Departure from normal course did not reflect bona fide on the part of the Authority

Right to a fair trial had been associated with the Fundamental Right of access to justice which should be read in every statute even if not expressly provided for unless specifically excluded

Impugned orders passed against the employees were not sustainable in law which were set aside with the direction to pay the back benefits to the petitioners curtailed due to imposition of penalty

Authority, if so advised would be at liberty to initiate de novo regular inquiry in the matter in accordance with law

Inquiry, if any, should be completed within a period of two months

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.