The Supreme Court has held that denying a witness the opportunity to be cross-examined amounts to a violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution, which ensures the right to a fair trial.
In a five-page verdict authored by Justice Salahuddin Panwar, the apex court overturned a ruling by the Federal Service Tribunal. The judgment emphasized that cross-examination is the most vital and time-tested legal method for uncovering the truth.
The court underscored that the credibility of evidence hinges on cross-examination, which plays a crucial role in revealing the truth and assessing the authenticity of accusations.
It further noted that in disciplinary inquiries, there is always a possibility that a witness may level false or malicious accusations due to personal hostility. Such claims cannot be accepted without the witness being subjected to cross-examination—a process essential for exposing the accuracy and honesty of the allegations.
The petitioner, who was serving as a superintendent of police (PSP-BS-18), was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
He was issued a charge sheet and a statement of allegations for committing acts of omission, thereby constituting inefficiency, misconduct and corruption in terms of Rule 3(a)(b) and (c) of the government servants (E&D) Rules, 1973.
The proceedings against the petitioner were initiated pursuant to an order dated December 23,2015, passed by the Supreme Court, and the Sindh government forwarded the names of other PSP officers, including the petitioner, for initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
However, during the inquiry proceedings, the petitioner was summoned, heard in person, and his statement/reply was recorded against the said charge sheet. The statements of 138 witnesses were recorded, but he was not allowed to cross-examine any of them.
After completion of the inquiry, the report was submitted on 12.11.2018 to the authorised officer, who forwarded it to the Secretary (Establishment) with the recommendation to impose the major penalty of “Reduction to Lower Stage in Time Scale for Three Years” under Rule-4(b)(ii) of the government servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973.
The Federal Service Tribunal (FST) upheld the punishment. The petitioner later approached the Supreme Court.
The order notes that the main objective of cross-examination is to rigorously scrutinise the witness’s testimony, reveal any inconsistencies, uncover potential biases, and critically assess the reliability of the evidence presented.
Source: Express Tribune