Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan—Art. 10-A & Art. 212—Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, Rr. 3 & 4—Service Tribunal Act (XL of 1973)—Right to fair trial—Departmental inquiry—Denial of right to cross-examine witnesses—Effect—Scope and object of departmental inquiry— Where a civil servant is subjected to departmental proceedings under the E&D Rules, 1973, the right to cross-examine witnesses is not merely procedural but a vested right and an integral component of the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Art. 10-A of the Constitution. In the present case, the petitioner, a PSP officer, was charged with inefficiency, misconduct, and corruption, and although 138 witnesses were examined during the inquiry, he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine any of them. The Supreme Court held that cross-examination is the most effective and indispensable test for ascertaining truth and ensuring due process in both civil and criminal proceedings, including departmental inquiries. Failure to afford this right amounted to a serious violation of natural justice and rendered the inquiry proceedings legally infirm. Cited Cases: Federation of Pakistan through Chairman FBR v. Zahid Malik (2023 SCMR 603) Usman Ghani v. Chief Post Master, GPO, Karachi (2022 SCMR 745) (b) Civil service—Departmental proceedings—Distinction between fact-finding and regular inquiry—Obligation of inquiry officer and Service Tribunal— A regular inquiry commences after a show cause notice and statement of allegations are issued and replied to; if the reply is unsatisfactory, an inquiry officer is appointed. In such inquiry, it is obligatory that the accused be provided a fair and evenhanded opportunity to defend, including cross-examination of any witness examined against him. In contrast, a fact-finding inquiry is a preliminary internal exercise to assess whether a formal case of misconduct exists. The Supreme Court held that both the inquiry officer and the Service Tribunal must distinguish between these types of inquiries and ensure due process is fully observed when disciplinary action is taken. (c) Service Tribunal—Jurisdiction and responsibility—Failure to examine denial of cross-examination—Effect— The Service Tribunal, acting as a civil court under Art. 212 of the Constitution, is obligated to deliver substantive justice and assess whether departmental proceedings comply with the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal’s failure to address the denial of cross-examination and its legal consequences amounted to a jurisdictional error and failure to protect the petitioner’s constitutional rights. Disposition: Petition allowed. Judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal set aside. Case remanded to Secretary Establishment for de novo inquiry within two months, ensuring full compliance with due process, including the petitioner’s right to cross-examine witnesses.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Public functionaries--- ----Powers and obligations---Doctrine of resulting trust---Scope---Land-owners voluntarily transferred their land (measuring 10 kanals) in favour of the Government / Health Department for the specified purpose of establishing Basic Health Unit (BHU), however, at the time of final approval the Provincial Cabinet declined the same on the ground that two BHUs were already operational in the said vicinity---Land-owners filed constitutional petition to retrieve/return their land but said relief was declined---Validity---Admittedly 10 kanals of land was transferred in favour of the Respondent / Department specifically for the establishment of BHU for the benefit of local vicinity but the Government's decision to abandon such project after the lapse of more than nineteen years amounts to failure of the basic condition upon which the land was transferred---The "doctrine of resulting trust" is attracted in such situations, where the land should revert to the original owners to prevent unjust enrichment by the State---The Government has taken no steps for the implementation of the proposed project and the subject land remains unutilized as is evident from fresh report sought by High Court---It is evident that land was admittedly transferred to the Respondent / Department for specific purpose that was not fulfilled till date---When property is transferred to the Government for a specific purpose and that purpose is not fulfilled, the transaction stands frustrated and the Government cannot retain such property for indefinite or alternative use without the consent of the donors---It is not permissible for the Government to retain the land as the underlying intention of the transfer no longer subsists and said aspect of the matter has totally been ignored by the Single Judge, while passing the impugned order---High Court set-aside the impugned order passed by Single Bench of High Court; consequently, the concerned Department (Respondent ) would return the subject land to the appellants by reversing the relevant mutations and restoring the ownership to the original owner/owners or his/their legal heirs---Intra-Court Appeal was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 4---Public functionaries---Powers and obligations---Equality of citizens---Land-owners voluntarily transferred their land (measuring 10 kanals) in favour of the Government / Health Department for the specified purpose of establishing Basic Health Unit (BHU), however, at the time of final approval the Provincial Cabinet declined the same on the ground that two BHUs were already operational in the said vicinity---Land-owners filed constitutional petition to retrieve/return their land but said relief was declined---Validity---Record reveals that Government decided to abandon project after the lapse of more than nineteen years---It is inalienable right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with law as envisaged by Art. 4 of the Constitution---Hence, it is the duty and obligation of every public functionary, including the Respondents / Department, to act within the four corners of the mandate of the Constitution---High Court set-aside the impugned order passed by Single Bench of High Court; consequently, the concerned Department (Respondent) would return the subject land to the appellants by reversing the relevant mutations and restoring the ownership to the original owner/owners or his/their legal heirs---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances. Ch. Afrasiab Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Talib Shahzad for Appellants. Malik Amjad Ali, Additional Advocate General Punjab with Barrister Raja Hashim Javed, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th June, 2025.