Disciplinary proceedings

--- Disciplinary proceedings --- Scope --- Major penalty of dismissal from service cannot be awarded without conducting regular inquiry or providing opportunity of being heard to a civil servant, as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.

--- Disciplinary proceedings --- Scope --- The allegations against the petitioners are that they in their capacity as police officials unlawfully confined, maltreated and tortured a person which was established during the inquiry through evidence and material described in the report of the inquiry officer as well as available on the record --- By detaining the victim illegally and subjecting him to torture, the petitioners acted in violation of their duty to act in accordance with law --- The act of the petitioners amounts to misuse of authority, falling within the definition of grave misconduct --- The penalty proposed by the authorized officer was not commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct committed by the petitioners --- The RPO, being the competent authority, provided opportunity to the petitioners to defend themselves --- After adopting due process, the competent authority was justified in enhancing the penalty, from reduction in pay by one stage for a period of two years, recommended by the inquiry officer, to that of dismissal from their service --- Such departmental proceedings were necessary to uphold the rule of law and maintain public confidence in State’s institutions --- The learned counsel for the petitioners had not been able to point out any substantial question of law of public importance in the petitions, warranting interference --- Leave to appeal was dismissed.

--- Disciplinary proceedings --- Mandatory observance of prescribed procedure --- Scope --- Courts in Pakistan have consistently stressed the mandatory observance of due process before imposing any penalty on a civil servant --- This principle arises from the right to due process and fair hearing, as well as the rule of law, ensuring that penalties are based on proven fraud or misconduct through a lawful inquiry, not administrative discretion or suspicion --- No civil servant can be penalized for fraud or misconduct without following the prescribed procedure laid down in the applicable efficiency and discipline rules --- These rules prescribe a complete procedure for taking disciplinary action --- The observance of the procedure prescribed in these rules is mandatory, not directory, and any penalty imposed without strictly following the prescribed procedure is void, without lawful authority, and of no legal effect.

--- Disciplinary proceedings --- Scope --- A penalty cannot rest on suspicion, complaints, or preliminary fact-finding.

--- Disciplinary proceedings --- Determination of guilt --- Scope --- A penalty cannot be imposed solely on the basis of a fact-finding inquiry --- A fact-finding inquiry may justify initiating disciplinary proceedings under the relevant efficiency and disciplinary rules, but cannot by itself result in punishment --- In contrast, the purpose of a departmental inquiry under the efficiency and disciplinary rules is to determine guilt or innocence of a civil servant --- The procedure is formal; charge sheet and statement of allegation are required to be issued; a written reply is to be filed; evidence is to be recorded, and an opportunity is to be given to the civil servant to cross-examine the witnesses against him --- In other words, the civil servant is to be given a full right of defense --- The outcome of such an inquiry is binding and forms the basis for a penalty.

--- Disciplinary proceedings --- Reasoned order --- Scope --- After considering the inquiry report and defense, the competent authority is required to issue a reasoned order, stating what charges are proved, how they are proved, and why a particular penalty is justified --- Reasoned decisions are cornerstones of due process and facilitate judicial review.