SC for 'ample opportunity' of defence to accused officer.

ISLAMABAD -- The Supreme Court has held that not providing ample opportunity of defence and depriving an accused officer from right of cross-examination to departmental representative who lead evidence and produced documents against the suspect is also against Article 10-A of the Constitution in which the right to a fair trial is a fundamental right.

"What is more, the principles of natural justice require that the delinquent should be afforded a fair opportunity to converge, give explanation and contest it before he is found guilty and condemned," a five-page judgment authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said.

A division bench of the apex court led by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar held that the primary objective of conducting departmental inquiry is to grasp whether a clear-cut case of misconduct is made out against the accused or not.

"The guilt or innocence is founded on the end result of the inquiry. The Service Tribunal may observe whether due process of law or right ,to fair trial was followed or ignored which is a fundamental right as envisaged under Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution")," the order said.

"The purpose of the cross-examination is to check the credibility of witnesses to elicit truth or expose falsehood. When the statement of a witness is not subjected to the cross-examination, its evidentiary value cannot be equated and synchronized with such statement that was made subject to cross- examination, which is not a mere formality, but is a valuable right to bring the truth out, " it added.

"If the inquiry officer or inquiry committee is appointed for conducting inquiry in the disciplinary proceedings, it is an onerous duty of such Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee to explore every avenue so that the inquiry may be conducted in a fair and impartial manner and should avoid razing and annihilating the principle of natural justice which may ensue in the miscarriage of justice.

The possibility cannot be ruled out in the inquiry that the 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.

The order stated that whys and wherefores of cross-examination lead to a pathway which may dismantle and impeach the accurateness and trustworthiness of the testimony given against the accused and also...