Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SULTAN AZAM VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB
2002 P L C (C
2002 P L C (C.S.) 1521
[Lahore High Court]
Before Amir Alam Khan, J
SULTAN AZAM
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others
Writ Petition No. 18726 of 1997, heard on 10th December, 2001.
(a) Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Rr. 5, 6 & 7‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Inquiry proceedings‑‑‑Charge‑sheet‑‑‑Challenge to‑‑‑Petitioner was entrusted an enquiry against an employee‑‑‑Petitioner conducted enquiry and submitted report to the concerned Authority‑‑‑Competent Authority instead of passing any appropriate order in regard to said inquiry, proceeded to issue charge‑sheet to the petitioner whereby he was called upon to explain his conduct as to enquiry against employee‑‑‑Petitioner had challenged charge sheet against him by a Constitutional petition‑‑‑Validity‑‑Petitioner had seen charge for misconducting enquiry, firstly by not consulting and collecting any record or ,relevant evidence having bearing on the case, secondly that petitioner had admitted before an Officer that enquiry report was
not drafted by ,the petitioner‑‑‑Two charges levelled against petitioner were pertinently directed against lass conduct as Enquiry Officer, which could at the most, entail an order for de novo enquiry or report submitted in that regard could be set aside by authorised officer, but it was nowhere provided under law to issue petitioner a charge‑sheet in that regard since he had acted as a Judicial Officer and had conducted inquiry as such‑‑‑Charge‑sheet issued to petitioner was declared by High Court to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
(b) Civil service‑‑‑
‑‑‑ Appointment/promotion‑‑‑Every eligible person has a 'right to be considered for appointment/promotion.
Javaid Shoukat Malik for Petitioner.
Muhammad Mazhar Sher Awan, A.A.‑G: with Shahid Abbas. Directorate of Special Education, Punjab Lahore for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 10th December, 2001.
JUDGMENT
This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question the legality of the charge‑sheet dated 22‑7‑1997 whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause against his conduct as Inquiry Officer to enquire into the conduct of one Mrs.. Fauzia Khurshid, Assistant. Director (Psy).
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, some necessary facts are that the petitioner being Assistant Professor in B.S. 18 was given additional charge of Principal of Government Training College for the Teachers of the Deaf, Gung Mahal,1 Gulberg‑II, Lahore; when he was entrusted an inquiry against one Mrs. Fauzia Khurshid, Assistant Director (Psy.) According to the petitioner the inquiry aforenoted was conducted by him in a most lawful manner and submitted his report to respondent No.2 who in turn, submitted it to respondent No. 1. Needless to add the petitioner had exonerated the accused lady from the charges levelled against her. The competent Authority i.e. respondent No. 1 instead of passing any appropriate order in regard to the said inquiry, proceeded to issue a charge‑sheet to the petitioner on 22‑7‑1997 whereby he was called upon to. explain his conduct as to the inquiry against the accused lady. The charge‑sheet contained the following two charges:‑‑
"(i) The petitioner neither consulted nor did he collected any record or all relevant evidence, statements etc., bearing on the same.
(ii) It is alleged that the petitioner admitted before the Deputy Secretary (Tech.) that the Enquiry Report was not drafted by him."
3. The above said charge‑sheet has been challenged in the present Constitutional petition mainly on the ground that it is an attempt to remove the petitioner from the post of Principal of Government Training College for the Teachers of Deaf, Gung Mahal, Lahore, and that the Inquiry Officer cannot in turn be charge‑sheeted in regard to scope, conduct and finalization of the Inquiry report for he acted as a judicial officer. It is submitted that the authorised officer at the most could have ordered for a de novo inquiry or having disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer proceeded to set aside the inquiry report.
4. In the report and parawise comments, the respondents have also misdirected themselves by commenting upon the holding of the additional charge of the post of Principal of Government Training College for the Teachers of the Deaf, Gang Mahal, Gulberg‑II, Lahore, as also be commenting on various aspects of the inquiry conducted by the petitioners, resultantly, they have maintained that the charge‑sheet as issued to the petitioner was lawful.
5. It would be noted that the petitioner has been charge‑sheeted for misconducting the inquiry by not consulting and collecting any record or the relevant evidence having bearing on the case. It is further alleged that the petitioner had admitted before the Deputy Secretary (Tech.) that the inquiry report was not drafted by him. The two charges levelled against the petitioner are pertinently directed against his conduct as Inquiry Officer which could, at the most, entail an order for de novo inquiry or the report submitted in that regard could be set aside by the authorized officer but it is nowhere provided under the law‑to issue him a charge‑sheet in that regard for he acted as a judicial officer and conducted the inquiry as such. It would be noted that the first charge pertains‑to the scope of inquiry and the conduct thereof and if the department itself had not produced any record or the relevant evidence, the Inquiry Officer is not to be blamed for the proceedings were adversarial in nature and the Inquiry Officer must maintain his impartiality and should not appear to have been biased. As far the second charge that he had admitted before the Deputy Secretary (Tech.) that the inquiry report had not been drafted by him, suffice it to observe here that this is putting words in the mouth of the third person to frame the petitioner. The attempt seems to be utterly mala fide and not sustainable in law. As for the plea of the petitioner that he should be considered for the appointment/promotion for the post of Principal of Government Training College for the Teachers of the Deaf, Gung Mahal, Gulberg‑II, Lahore, it may be noted that every eligible person has a right to be considered for appointment/promotion.
6. In the circumstances, this petition is allowed. The charge‑sheet dated 22‑7‑1995 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
H.B.T./S‑421/L Petition allowed.