Departmental Inquiry

Petitioner/civil servant was dismissed from service on the charges of misconduct and his appeal was also dismissed by Service Tribunal

Validity

Principles of natural justice require that delinquent should be afforded fair opportunity to contest charges before he is found guilty

No efforts were made by inquiry officer either intentionally or unintentionally to explore guilt of petitioner/civil servant

Such inquiry report could not be construed as fair and impartial, nor was it commensurate with the procedure provided under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 for conducting an inquiry into allegation of misconduct

Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal and order passed by authorities imposing major punishment of dismissal from service was also set aside

Supreme Court remanded the matter to departmental authorities for conducting a de novo regular inquiry into the same allegation of misconduct jotted down in the charge sheet and provide fair opportunity to petitioner/civil servant to defend the charges, as inquiry proceedings and report were defective

Supreme Court directed the authorities to pass speaking order and convey the same to petitioner/civil servant

Appeal was allowed.

Petitioner/civil servant was dismissed from service on the charges of misconduct and his appeal was also dismissed by Service Tribunal

Validity

Principles of natural justice require that delinquent should be afforded fair opportunity to contest charges before he is found guilty

No efforts were made by inquiry officer either intentionally or unintentionally to explore guilt of petitioner/civil servant

Such inquiry report could not be construed as fair and impartial, nor was it commensurate with the procedure provided under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 for conducting an inquiry into allegation of misconduct

Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal and order passed by authorities imposing major punishment of dismissal from service was also set aside

Supreme Court remanded the matter to departmental authorities for conducting a de novo regular inquiry into the same allegation of misconduct jotted down in the charge sheet and provide fair opportunity to petitioner/civil servant to defend the charges, as inquiry proceedings and report were defective

Supreme Court directed the authorities to pass speaking order and convey the same to petitioner/civil servant

Appeal was allowed.

Object of a departmental inquiry is to investigate allegations of misconduct in order to maintain discipline, decorum, and efficiency within the institution, and strengthening and preserving public confidence

In a departmental enquiry, the standard of proof is that of balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence but not proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is a strict standard required in a criminal trial, where the potential penalties are severe.

Object of a departmental inquiry is to investigate allegations of misconduct in order to maintain discipline, decorum, and efficiency within the institution, and strengthening and preserving public confidence

In a departmental enquiry, the standard of proof is that of balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence but not proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is a strict standard required in a criminal trial, where the potential penalties are severe.

Ambiguity in the record about assessing the eligibility of the appointee and none of the accused officers found involved in the fact finding inquiry

Deficiency of documentary evidence and procedural fairness

Effect

Appointment, the domain of appointing authority

Appointing Authority did not have sufficient material available on record to have formed an opinion that there was no need of initiation of regular enquiry into the case of the appellant

Competent Authority was within its right to dispense with departmental enquiry in terms of R.5(1) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (E&D) Rules, 2011 (Rules) when there was sufficient material available which prima facie connected the accused with the commission of misconduct; while in the instant case, the material, so produced, was deficient in all respects and an opinion could not be legally formed to justify the dispensation of regular enquiry

Powers of the Competent Authority could not be called in question to dispense with the enquiry, however, in the instant case, neither there was documentary evidence against the appellant, nor any satisfactory reasons had been recorded, thus, the appellant was not provided sufficient chance to vindicate herself against the allegations

Penalty imposed upon the appellant was set aside with the observation that if respondents had sufficient material against the appellant they may proceed against her after following the procedure as provided in R.11 of the Rules

Service Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner sought direction to the respondents to constitute a fresh inquiry committee comprised of independent and honest members

During working hours, some altercation had ensued between the petitioner, who was an Assistant Superintendent, and a Deputy Director (Operations)

In that background, the Director General initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner

Petitioner was issued a charge sheet, statement of allegations and an inquiry was initiated for which a Committee was constituted

Contention of the petitioner that members of the inquiry committee were subordinates of the Director General warranted no interference for the simple reason that the proceedings against the petitioner were of departmental nature, as such, the inquiry had to be conducted through some officials of the same department

Official regarding whom disciplinary proceedings had been initiated was not part of the inquiry proceedings

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Foremost aspiration of conducting departmental inquiry was to find out whether a prima facie case of misconduct was made out against the delinquent officer for proceeding further

Guilt or innocence could only be thrashed out from the outcome of inquiry and at the same time it was also required to be seen by the Service Tribunal as to whether due process of law or right to fair trial was followed or ignored which was a fundamental right.

Foremost aspiration of conducting departmental inquiry was to find out whether a prima facie case of misconduct was made out against the delinquent officer for proceeding further

Guilt or innocence could only be thrashed out from the outcome of inquiry and at the same time it was also required to be seen by the Service Tribunal as to whether due process of law or right to fair trial was followed or ignored which was a fundamental right.

Department amended service rules and filled the post of Assistant Programmer (BPS-16) by promotion from Data Processing Supervisors (BPS-14)

Subsequently, posts of Computer Operator and Data Processing Supervisors had been upgraded from (BPS-12) and (BPS-14) respectively to (BPS-16)

Petitioner moved application for issuance of joint seniority list of Computer Operators and Assistant Programmers

New post of Assistant Director (IT) (BPS-17) was created by the Department and only cadre of Assistant Programmer was allowed for promotion to the said post

Petitioner filed departmental appeal followed by constitutional petition, and during pendency of said petition, department issued show-cause notice to the petitioner which was replied by petitioner, yet he was removed form service

Validity

Petitioner vide his reply (to show-cause notice of the department) denied all the allegations, but respondent/department imposed major penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner without holding regular inquiry

Reasons for not holding inquiry as given by the department was against the intent of law and principles of natural justice

Order of removal was not only biased but also predetermined and was contrary to the basic principles of jurisprudence

"Nobody could be the judge of his own cause"

Respondent/department issued show cause notice to petitioner alleging therein that he maligned the Office of Ombudsman particularly the department

On reply filed by the petitioner, department without holding inquiry imposed upon him major penalty of removal form service

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances and petitioner was reinstated into service with all back-benefits.

Petitioner was senior auditor in the office of Accountant General and was alleged to have been involved in embezzlement of funds

Validity

During departmental fact-finding inquiry, petitioner along with his co-accused of Accountant General Office during years 2015-2017, was found responsible for certifying 838 bills in contravention with their legal responsibilities and duties and he was dismissed from service

During investigation it was found that in the relevant period petitioner made huge transaction of Rs.11,000,000/- in his salary account which he could not justify

Petitioner admitted withdrawal of Rs.100,000/- by his son via cheque from account of a co-accused as his share of scam on the asking of petitioner

Nothing was available on record to show that implication of petitioner in case was actuated with any mala fide intention or ulterior motives

Petitioner was required by investigating agency for the purpose of further investigation

Sufficient incriminating material is available on record to connect petitioner with alleged offence

Pre-arrest bail was dismissed in circumstances.

Where there were serious allegations against an employee which were denied by him, the department was under an obligation to conduct a regular inquiry in all circumstances

In case the departmental authorities came to the conclusion that there was sufficient documentary evidence available on record which was enough to establish the charge, it could, after recording reasons, which were of course justiciable, dispense with the inquiry in the interest of expeditious conclusion of departmental proceedings

Courts can always re­examine the reasons assigned by the departmental authority for dispensing with the requirement of regular inquiry and if such reasons were not found cogent and legally sustainable, the Court had all requisite powers and was not debarred from sending the matter back to the department to hold a regular inquiry.

Where there were serious allegations against an employee which were denied by him, the department was under an obligation to conduct a regular inquiry in all circumstances

In case the departmental authorities came to the conclusion that there was sufficient documentary evidence available on record which was enough to establish the charge, it could, after recording reasons, which were of course justiciable, dispense with the inquiry in the interest of expeditious conclusion of departmental proceedings

Courts can always re-examine the reasons assigned by the departmental authority for dispensing with the requirement of regular inquiry and if such reasons were not found cogent and legally sustainable, the Court had all requisite powers and was not debarred from sending the matter back to the department to hold a regular inquiry.

Methodology of departmental enquiry and requirements of law elucidated.

Civil servant offered himself to face new charge provided Department would not hold second inquiry on rest of allegations already inquired into by Inquiry Officer

Constitutional petition was accepted to the extent that civil servant would not face another trial on same allegations which stood concluded by Inquiry Officer and which still had to be proceeded on by Authorised Officer in view of provisions of R.7-A, Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975

Department could initiate departmental action on new charge and could appoint fresh Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Officers already appointed subject to right of association of civil servant and concluding the same within specified time.

Departmental enquiry—Cross-examination of prosecution witness by accused-Essential - Refusal of such opportunity - Renders enquiry seriously defective-Consequential penalty order-Not sustainable.

Right of cross-examination of prosecution witness-Vital-Verbal statements of witnesses used for ultimate punishment-Such witnesses examined in absence of accused-Denial of vital right, held, vitiated proceedings.

Departmental inquiry Employee suspended and charge sheeted by Deputy Registrar-On objection that Deputy Registrar not competent to do so-Fresh charge-sheet submitted Contention that suspension of employee till time of validation by Registrar without lawful authority-Held, not sound-Order of suspension not penalty and does not violate any legal right vesting in suspended-officer.

-Departmental enquiry - Institution of-Any "fact finding enquiry" or "preliminary enquiry" conducted at the back of Government servant-Not a "departmental enquiry" "Departmental proceedings" cannot be said to have been "instituted" before Government servant is charge-sheeted-West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963, r. 1.8 (a).

Art. 177-Government servant-Departmental inquiry-Allegation of bias against inquiry officer-Bare possibility or mere suspicion of bias not enough.

Departmental Inquiry Departmental Enquiry-Purely Managerial Junction Accused to be allowed to cross-examine witness, supporting charges, as well as to defend with evidence, documentary or oral.

Charge-sheet-Misconduct-Departmental enquiry-Nature of-Duty of employer to give clear charge-sheet and produce evidence on which he relies-Onus of proof of innocence not to be placed on workman.