MUHAMMAD ALI WASSAN vs THE PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN — 2026 PLC(CS) 734 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD ALI WASSAN VS THE PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN. Arts. 10A & 212---Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, Rr. 3(a) & 4(b)(i)---Departmental inquiry against government servant, conducting of---Right of cross-examination, denial of---Right of defence---Scope---Services Tribunal---Powers and responsibilities---The aim of conducting inquiries is not only to determine the responsibility of the individual in question with regard to the charges outlined in the Show-Cause Notice (SCN) or statement of allegations, but also to help identify and uncover the true culprit or delinquent---In the present case, it was quite strange that admittedly 138 witnesses were examined but the inquiry officer failed to provide any opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine them---Pertinently, under the civil and criminal law, the examination-in-chief or mere statement of any witness has no legal value or sanctity unless he appears for cross-examination by the other side, which is a most effective device invented to unearth the truth---It is a vested right, which should be safeguarded and made available being fundamental limb of natural justice---Right of proper defence and cross-examination of witnesses by the accused is a vested right---Cross-examination is the highest and most indispensable test known to the law for the discovery of truth---Indeed, the reliability of evidence can only be judged through cross-examination, which is essential to reveal the truth and test the credibility of allegations, especially when possibility cannot be ruled out in the inquiry that a witness may raise untrue and dishonest allegations due to some animosity against the accused, which cannot be accepted unless he undergoes the test of cross-examination, which indeed helps to expose the truth and veracity of allegations---Denying the opportunity of cross-examination of witness is violation of Article 10A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial---Main objective of cross-examination is to rigorously scrutinize the witness's testimony, reveal any inconsistencies, uncover potential biases and critically assess the reliability of the evidence presented---Primary purpose of conducting a departmental inquiry is to thoroughly investigate alleged misconduct, ensure accountability, uphold organizational standards and protect the integrity of the institution; it aims to gather relevant facts, assess the situation fairly and determine appropriate actions based on the findings---Primary purpose of a departmental inquiry is to determine whether there is a preliminary case of misconduct against the delinquent officer to justify further action---Question of guilt or innocence depends on the inquiry's findings---Thus, Service Tribunal must assess whether the inquiry was conducted in accordance with due process and the right to a fair trial, which is a fundamental right---Pertinently, the establishment of the Service Tribunal (Tribunal) under Article 212 of the Constitution serves the purpose of adjudicating matters related to the terms and conditions of civil servants---In deciding appeals, the Tribunal functions as a civil court with equivalent powers and bears the responsibility to deliver fair and substantial justice through sound fact-finding---All judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies must exercise their authority impartially and in accordance with the law, respecting the principles of natural justice---Denial of the right to cross-examine during an inquiry is not a minor procedural flaw but a serious error that undermines the foundation of the case of misconduct---In the present case it was the Tribunal's legal obligation to thoroughly examine the inquiry report, including the consequences of denying cross-examination to fairly decide the appeals on their merits---Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal while remanding the case to the Secretary Establishment to conduct a de novo inquiry, ensuring that all requirements of a fair trial were met, including providing the petitioner a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses---Petition for leave to appeal was allowed and converted into an appeal and was disposed of accordingly.

MUHAMMAD ALI WASSAN vs THE PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN — 2026 PLC(CS) 734 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLC