livelawpk.com - Cross-Examination is a Vested Right under the Constitution

Cross-Examination is a Vested Right under the Constitution, and no Evidence can be considered Trustworthy unless tested by Cross-Examination --- Supreme Court of Pakistan

3 months, 2 weeks
170

Cross-Examination is a Vested Right under the Constitution, and no Evidence can be considered Trustworthy unless tested by Cross-Examination --- Supreme Court of Pakistan

Islamabad 04-09-2024: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has restored two prison officials, Ex-Senior Superintendent Prison and Deputy Superintendent Prison, to their original positions, citing serious procedural flaws in the departmental inquiry conducted against them. The petitioners had been penalized for their alleged involvement in the escape of two notorious criminals from Karachi's Anti-Terrorism Court in June 2017.

The Supreme Court’s bench, comprising Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, allowed both petitions (Civil Petition Nos. 646-K/2021 and 647-K/2021), setting aside the penalties imposed on the petitioners by the Sindh Service Tribunal. The Ex-Senior Superintendent Prison’s demotion, which had been extended from three to five years, was overturned, while Deputy Superintendent Prison’s dismissal from service was reversed, reinstating him with full back benefits.

The case arose from an incident where two hardcore criminals escaped from an anti-terrorism Court in Karachi. Departmental and criminal proceedings were initiated against several prison officials, including petitioners, who were accused of negligence in the escape. The inquiry officer found them guilty, leading to their punishment. Additionally, the two officers were convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court in 2019 but were later acquitted by the Supreme Court in May 2024.

Despite their acquittal in the criminal case, the departmental inquiry against the petitioners continued, and the Sindh Service Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed by the departmental authorities. The petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the inquiry process was fundamentally flawed.

The Court highlighted several procedural defects in the inquiry process, particularly the denial of the petitioners' right to cross-examine the witnesses against them. Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, delivering the judgment, noted that Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process, had been violated. The inquiry officer failed to allow the petitioners to cross-examine the 20 witnesses whose statements formed the basis of their conviction in the departmental proceedings.

The Court also pointed out that the inquiry report did not reflect transparency and fairness, and it emphasized the critical role of cross-examination in determining the truth. Citing the case of “Federation of Pakistan through Chairman FBR Vs. Zahid Malik” [2023 SCMR 603], the judgment reiterated that cross-examination is a vested right under the Constitution, and no evidence can be considered trustworthy unless tested by cross-examination.

The ruling further underscored the principles of natural justice and the need for departmental inquiries to be conducted with strict adherence to procedural fairness. It warned that a flawed inquiry process could result in a miscarriage of justice, as in this case.

In a significant directive, the Supreme Court instructed the Sindh Government to compile a “Handbook of Inquiry Procedures” to guide inquiry officers and ensure future inquiries are conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The handbook should cover the relevant provisions from the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, and the Jail Manual.

The ruling underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring procedural fairness and upholding the rights of accused individuals, particularly in departmental inquiries. The restoration of both petitioners, coupled with the Court’s sharp critique of the inquiry process, is expected to have wide-ranging implications for future disciplinary proceedings across government departments.

Both petitioners will now be reinstated to their positions with full back benefits, marking a significant victory for them after years of legal battles.