Find a Lawyer

SYED SABIR HUSSAIN SHAH versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GUJRAT

The R6 Inquiry Authority was issued by the prosecution witnesses and accompanying this cause notice and then their written statements were relied upon, whereas the accused action of authority was not disclosed under the approval of the order, the rules Contrary to the provisions, such procedures also demand the denial of a defense opportunity. never allowed or afforded any opportunity to cross‑examine them. . Secondly it was pointed out that in the show‑cause notice (Annexure A') the Authority had observed that under rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 an enquiry was dispensed with but later the Authority proceeded to make ex parte probes to collect evidence which was inconsistent with the process adopted earlier. The appellant rather submitted that in this case an enquiry was essential to establish the correct position.

4. We have heard the parties and perused the record. The contention of the appellant regarding examination of Muhammad Amin and Ghulam Hussain appears to be well‑founded. We accordingly hold that the relevant provisions contained in the E & D Rules, 1975 have not been correctly followed. (See para. 3 at page 3 of the impugned order‑Annexure E'). The Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat has relied upon the statements of Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Amin the contents of which did not appear to have disclosed to the appellant at any stage. This constituted the denial of due apportunity to the appellant. The contention of the appellant as to the requirement of an enquiry has also considerable force. We accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the Depart mental Authority. We direct the authority to proceed in accordance with law.

Appeal accepted.