Inquiry

If a person openly professes belief in or adherence to a particular faith, no further inquiry or evidence is ordinarily required to verify its genuineness

In Islam, no specific rituals are required to be performed by a non-Muslim before he or she is regarded as having renounced a previous faith and embraced Islam

What is required is a declaration to that effect and the recitation of the Kalma, along with belief in the Oneness of Allah, the Finality of the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and the Holy Qur'an.

Appellant company was aggrieved of order passed by Pakistan Telecommunication Authority in consequence of show cause notice

Validity

Appellant company did not have advantage of material / evidence collected by the Authority during visit to the office of appellant company

If such material was inculpatory or had information against appellant company, it was of utmost importance that it should have been confronted to appellant company

Failure on the part of Pakistan Telecommunication Authority to share such material and passing decision on the basis thereof had defeated ends of justice

Proceedings before Pakistan Telecommunication Authority were in the nature of quasi-judicial and it was of paramount importance that tenets of justice should have been adhered to

High Court set aside order passed by Pakistan Telecommunication Authority as the act of not sharing material gathered during visit of office of appellant company violated basic principle of justice viz due process and fair trial

High Court remanded the matter to Pakistan Telecommunication Authority for decision afresh

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

To conduct an inquiry or have an inquiry into any allegation of corruption or corrupt practice is not the prerogative of the authority but is a legal obligation

However, the authority is always required to follow the procedure while performing any act

Such authority shall continue to stick with legal position that even, in matters of inquiry, there should be no deviation from normal course or discrimination.

In cases where willful absence from duty is an admitted fact, no regular inquiry was required before dismissing the employee from service.

Petitioner's suit for declaration and permanent injunction against orders of Revenue Authorities was decreed by the Trial Court

Appeal of respondents was allowed

Petitioner contended that evidence on record proved that petitioner was a legal heir of deceased (being consanguine brother of deceased father of respondents/daughters); that appeals filed by respondents were time barred; that Foti Khata had been recorded in favour of petitioner after thorough inquiry including Jalsa-e-Aam; that the said inquiry was not challenged; that mere non-disclosure of pedigree table in suit by itself was not fatal for suit; that it was never established that respondents belonged to Shia sect

Validity

After death of the deceased, on application of petitioner concerned Assistant Mukhtiarkar had declared the petitioner to be the legal heir of deceased along with respondents/daughters of deceased

Respondents filed suit for declaration and injunction against the petitioner which was unconditionally withdrawn

Respondents filed appeal before District Officer Revenue which was allowed vide order against which petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by E.D.O. Revenue

Pedigree table by itself was not a proof of relationship which had to be proved independently by affirmative evidence regarding claim of relationship

On spot enquiry made by Mukhtiarkar revealed that petitioner was legal heir of the deceased and that deceased was a follower of Sunni sect and an order for mutation was made and implemented accordingly

Deputy District Officer conducted inquiry on order of District Officer and vide his inquiry report informed him that petitioner was legal heir of deceased

On spot inquiry was made through 3 persons (Nek-Mard) whereas the entire pedigree of the deceased was revealed that petitioner's claim was correct

District Officer Revenue could not disagree with the same inquiry report without any further inquiry and deliberations, but he passed an order contrary to the facts on record in slipshod manner without any reason/rhyme

E.D.O. Revenue failed to dilate upon the issue and had not given his own finding and his order was non-speaking order and without any reasoning

Orders of both officers i.e. D.O. Revenue and E.D.O. Revenue were not proper, against law, and had been passed in cursory manner

Respondents had approached the Revenue Authorities after aborting their civil remedy, hence, burden upon them was on higher pedestal as compared to the one on the petitioner who came to assert some right or breach of his right

Revision petition was allowed accordingly.

Commissioner (Appeals) may entertain documents or take evidence for the purpose of inquiry at the appellate stage if after due consideration and applying judicial mind he deems it appropriate and necessary.

Section 45B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, empowers the Commissioner (Appeals) to make further inquiry for the purpose of deciding appeal provided that he does not remand the case

Elementary rule of construction of statutes is that the court is called upon to interpret any provision needs to ascertain the intention of law-makers from the words used which may receive their literal, natural and ordinary meaning where the words are not defined in the statute which is known as 'rule of litera legis'

Applying the said rule of construction, the use of word 'may' in the above referred provision was not accidental but a deliberate and conscious insertion by the law makers who were aware about the implication of word 'may'

Deliberate use of word 'may' and phrase 'as may be necessary' suggests that the legislature has left it on the discretion of the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide with application of mind whether to make any inquiry or not varying from case to case as deemed necessary with a condition that the Commissioner (Appeals) shall not remand the case for de novo consideration.

Word 'further' means that the Commissioner (Appeals) can inquire into matter in furtherance of any previous inquiry already held and that denotes the previous inquiry held by the taxation officer at the stage of adjudication

Provision leaves no ambiguity that the Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered to make any inquiry in furtherance of any previous inquiry held by the taxation officer at the adjudication stage if after due consideration and application of mind the Commissioner (Appeals) deems it appropriate and necessary

Commissioner (Appeals) may entertain or take evidence produced before him for the purpose of inquiry to find out the truth

Commissioner (Appeals), after making such inquiry is debarred from remanding the matter to the lower authority for de novo consideration and is required to pass the order under S. 45B(2).

Importers submitted guarantee/pay orders in form of security to get their goods released without further demurrage to their consignments

After clearance of all duties importers sought refund of their guarantees/security pay orders

Authorities declined to refund the same on plea that it was barred by limitation

Validity

Provisions of S. 33 of Customs Act, 1969 was not applicable therefore, limitation of one year to seek refund would not come into play

Furnishing of guarantee/pay orders in compliance of court order by importers did not tantamount to customs duty being paid within meaning of Customs Act, 1969

Section 33 of Customs Act, 1969 being not applicable, refund had to be made notwithstanding the fact that incidence of customs duty was passed on to customer and therefore, S. 19-A of Customs Act, 1969 was not attracted

Power of authorities under S. 19-A of Customs Act, 1969 did not give authorities a license and unfettered discretion to go on fishing and roving exercise

Power was to be exercised fairly and reasonably by the authorities

Once importer had provided reasonable evidence to show that incidence of duty was not passed on to end user, importer had discharged its burden and it would be upon the authorities to then prove otherwise

Act of authorities to return some of importers guarantees/pay orders while declining to do the same for others who were sailing in the same boat was discriminatory, unfair and violated the Fundamental Rights of importers

High Court directed authorities to return guarantees/pay orders to importers

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Court of law is competent to consider the actual circumstances in existence and such change apparent on record does not require any inquiry.

Documents were received by Federal Government through High Commission of the United Kingdom and had been duly authenticated by competent forums/courts

Other co-accused were proceeded against and tried for offenses and were handed down convictions and sentenced by a competent court in United Kingdom

CCTV footages, data relating to cellular phones in use of petitioner, details regarding movements of other co-accused and other authenticated material was taken into consideration

Inquiry Magistrate had formed an opinion that a prima facie case was made out in favour of requisition

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by inquiry Magistrate as it did not suffer from any legal infirmity nor procedure adopted by Federal Government or inquiry Magistrate was found to be in violation of provisions of Extradition Act, 1972

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1999, a different procedure had been laid down for registration of case against public servant; first, the Director Anti-Corruption had to direct a preliminary inquiry, followed by open inquiry; if any case was made out against a public servant on the material collected during the inquiry, he had to accord sanction for registration of the case

Such cases shall be registered by the Establishment at the police station of the establishment having the jurisdiction

Registration of case of corruption by local police at ordinary police station other than the police station of Anti-Corruption Establishment was not admissible.

Public functionaries were bound to decide cases of their subordinates after application of mind with cogent reasons within reasonable time

Further, public functionaries were obliged to act within four corners of mandate of the Constitution and the law.

When any action was proposed to be taken against an employee appointed even on ad-hoc or contract basis, a regular inquiry had to be conducted, so that the concerned employee not only knew the allegations against him, but was also able to defend himself before the inquiry officer

Right of personal hearing could also not be taken away from an employee.

Before summoning a person to attend, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) was duty bound to identify and particularize the information sought from any witness etc. and to state the nexus between such information and the subject of the inquiry being conducted by NAB.

Inquiry was initiated against petitioner society and an Administrator was also appointed to conduct the affairs of petitioner society

Plea raised by petitioner was that there were no reasons given by competent authority in its order for appointment of Administrator

Validity-1f competent authority had appointed Inquiry Officer and he after conducting inquiry submitted his report and competent authority "merely agreed with the report of Inquiry Officer, the authority was not required to record separate reason as to why it agreed with the report of Inquiry Officer

Mere fact that competent authority agreed with report of Inquiry Officer meant that reasons recorded by Inquiry Officer became reasons for which competent authority decided to make decision

If competent authority had disagreed with Inquiry Officer, then it was duty bound to record its reasons

Petitioner society was taken over by Administrator and it was requirement of law under S.14 of Sindh Cooperative Housing Authority Ordinance, 1982, to hold election of office bearers within a period of one year

High Court directed the authorities to give opportunity to petitioner to submit its reply to show-cause notice and thereafter decide upon it in accordance with law

High Court further directed the authorities that subject to such decision, election of the society should be held within a period of one year from the date of order assailed before High Court and after election affairs of the society be handed over to newly elected office bearers

Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Appellants were proceeded against by Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan on the ground that they had fraudulently sold shares of their company on a very low price of Rs.16 per share and the buyer company further sold the shares to another buyer at a price of Rs.333.33 per share within a period of less than one year

Plea raised by appellants was that transaction was a genuine transaction

Validity

Held, it was one of the duties of Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan to ensure adequate protection. to investors by detecting unfair trade practices in case any unfair practice was detected, it should take all necessary measures to undo the wrong

Such was necessary to maintain confidence of ordinary share-holders of a company who were sitting at a distance waiting to reap fruits of their investments

Investors not being part of every decision making process of the company reposed faith in the management which was expected to make sound commercial decisions for collective benefit of all share-holders

Such faith and trust could not be allowed to be breached with impunity

High Court commended detection of scam by officers of the Commission

Shares of the company were sold below their value that deprived ordinary share-holders of true worth of their shares

Right to claim price differential between two sale transactions belonged to such share-holders who in proportion to their respective shareholdings held in the company as on the date when shares were initially sold and not to those who purchased the shares in the company after the initial sale

High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction declined to interfere with the order passed by Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

For resolving controversial questions of facts where evidence had to be recorded and opportunity of cross-examination was to be given, proper course would be to hold full-fledged enquiry, findings recorded otherwise would be based more on conjectures than on evidence available on record:

Indian Income-Tax Act, 1961, S. 131.

Where facts were disputed between the parties, Authorised Officer should normally entrust inquiry to inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee

Where Authorised Officer once decided under R. 5(i) (iii) of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 that it was not necessary to have an inquiry conducted through an Inquiry Officer or an Inquiry Committee, it was not deemed to be as final

Authorised Officer could change that view if subsequent circumstance on additional evidence, so warranted

-Rules also did not provide that decision of Authorised Officer under R.5(i)(iii) of said Rules would be unchangeable

Civil servant should face inquiry, produce evidence. in rebuttal and then urge for entrustment of inquiry to Inquiry Officer or Enquiry Committee

Inquiry Officer having not been appointed and charge having not been framed in the case, oral evidence was not required to be recorded in circumstances

Civil servant was entitled to right of cross-examination of witnesses if those had been examined under R. 6(3) of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973

Where inquiry under said Rules was pending against civil servant, it was in his own interest to contest inquiry.

Not controverted by respondent in cross-examination-Enquiry proceedings reveal cross-examination of accused by Enquiry Officer

Petitioner neither examined on oath nor cross-examined

Held: Enquiry was not held in proper manner and by independent officer-Order of dismissal being defective, set aside and petitioner re-instated in service

Respondent at liberty to hold fresh enquiry by some other independent officer.

Rr. 2(3) & 5-Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rules .of Business, 1975 - Appointment of Inquiry Officer-Fairness of Inquiry Minimum requirement of fairness

Inquiry against a civil servant must not be violative of principles of natural justice-Inquiry Officer should be fair and impartial and person against whom he has to hold enquiry should have full confidence in him-Such Inquiry Officer if not on good terms with the person proceeded against, he should not hold inquiry himself but should refer the matter to higher authorities for appointment of another Inquiry Officer.

S. 107 read with Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, para. 8Remand-Inquiry-Contents of orders impugned before High Court being kept in view, question as to whether appellant was or was not a sitting allottee could be resolved only through a proper inquiry and by affording opportunity of hearing to both parties

Case not one where assertion regarding appellant being a sitting allottee either undisputed or substantiated by admitted facts-Controversy, held, could best be resolved in accordance with procedure adopted by High Court.[Remand of case].

Plea as to evidence of an important witness having not been recorded in, presence of petitioner Government servant neither taken in grounds of appeal filed before Service Tribunal nor raised in arguments before such Tribunal

Service Tribunal stating departmental inquiry having been conducted according to rules and procedure duly followed-Misappropriation of money having been duly proved in course of inquiry and competent authority having accordingly dismissed petitioner from service, leave to appeal refused.

[Civil services].

Natural justice, principles of-Petitioner workman, charged with absence from duty and embezzlement of mosey entrusted to him, participating in inquiry by cross-examining employer's witness and by examining himself-Petitioner also signing a statement indicating his desire to produce no evidence-Petitioner not alleging to have not signed the statement or to have signed statement under duress, no rule of natural justice, held, violated in acting upon such inquiry-Inquiry conducted in accordance with law relating to subject anti bold in fair and reasonable manner, no exception, held further, could be taken to orders of worker's dismissal from service based on such inquiry particularly when petitioner could not explain why he illegally kept monies belonging to respondent-Bank for over six months.-[Natural justice, principles of-Industrial dispute].

Inquiry -Terminating in commitment to Court of Session-Inquiry a legal proceeding.