Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 430 of 1984decided on 21st October, 1985.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil service‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑Finding of High Court that respondent was not allowed opportunity by Enquiry Officer to cross‑examine witnesses whose statements were used against him, borne out from record‑‑Finding of High Court being unexceptionable, leave refused.
Mian Saeedur Rehman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
C.A. Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 21st October, 1985.
‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 31‑1‑1984 allowing a constitution petition filed by respondent and in result setting aside the orders of his dismissal from service with the direction that petitioner‑Bank may hold fresh departmental enquiry against respondent in accordance with law, if so advised. The reasons which prevailed with the learned Judge in the High Court for allowing the constitution petition may be reproduced in his words as under:‑
"Since, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am inclined to accept the petition on short legal point, I need not set out the facts giving rise to the charge sheet and need not discuss the merits of the case. I find (as admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent) that although the Enquiry Officer had examined numerous witnesses but he did not give any opportunity to the petitioner to cross‑examine them. The statements of the witnesses, which are without cross‑examination have been used and acted upon against the petitioner. Since the petitioner was entitled to the right of cross‑examination, as a matter of right, and this right has not been given to him, therefore, there is no alternative but to declare the impugned orders to be illegal and without lawful authority. Resultantly, the impugned orders are declared to be of no legal effect."
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. We find that the finding of the learned Judge in the High Court that no opportunity was granted to the respondent by the Enquiry Officer to cross‑examine the witnesses produced against him is fully bore out by the record. No exception can, therefore, be taken against the judgment passed by the learned Judge in the High Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
M.Y.H Leave refused
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer