Inquiry Proceedings

—nature of role of inquiry officer—the nature of inquiry which results into punishment of the accused is akin to the criminal proceedings and the role of inquiry office is not just like an investigator or prosecutor rather his role is like a Judge—such inquiry should be conducted in the manner provided by law—for proof the inquiry office should have brought on record all the oral and documentary evidence—-accused must be provided an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses—it is also the right of accused to produce defence evidence— Javid Akhtar Chohan v. Deputy Commissioner District Kotli & 3 others 2020 SCR 94 (A) 1996 SCR 127 & 2016 SCR 996 ref
—challenge to—writ—if a civil servant is proceeded for misconduct by the competent authority then he cannot challenge the proceedings in writ jurisdiction until the final order is passed–if jurisdiction is assumed by an incompetent authority then a civil servant cannot wait for passing of the final order and can move before the proper authority for redressal of his grievance. Azad Govt. & 2 others V. Raja Muhammad Aftab Khan & 3 others 2020 SCR 656 (A)
—termination from service—allegation of theft— application/information and statement of complainant, regarding theft, not on record—hastily concluded inquiry proceedings and respondent terminated within five days of alleged theft—Held: indicative of the mala fide intent on the part of petitioners. Director General (KIM) & 2 others vs Kh. Khushal Hussain & another 2024 SCR 421(A)
—termination from service—allegation of theft—nonfurnishing of copy of inquiry report—non-affording of opportunity of cross-examination—non-adherence to principles of natural justice—sanctity and validity of inquiry proceedings—effect—- Held: the respondent was not afforded the opportunity of cross-examination, a fundamental procedural right. Additionally, the respondent was not provided with a copy of the inquiry report, which is indispensable to uphold the principles of natural justice. The role of the inquiry officer is tantamount to that of a judge, and it is imperative that he adheres to the mandatory provisions of the law. However, in this case, the Inquiry Officer neglected to provide the respondent with the opportunity of cross-examination and neglected to furnish a copy of the inquiry report, rendering the report legally deficient. Moreover, the proper procedure prescribed by law was not followed in imposing the major penalty of “removal from service” upon the respondent. Director General (KIM) & 2 others vs Kh. Khushal Hussain & another 2024 SCR 421 (B)