Law: Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006

Section: 2,4(b)(iii),10,10(1),13,13(1)(5)(i)(ii)( 6)

Law: Punjab Local Government (Contract) Rules, 2003

Section: R.6,10

Law: Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XIII of 2001)

Section: 56

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 4

(a) Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006)-------Ss. 4(b) (iii), 10 (1) & 13 (1) (5) (i) (ii) (6)---Taxation officer Tehsil Municipal Administration--- Allegation of irregularities---Recommendations of Inquiry Officer for imposition of penalty for forfeiture of past service of two years---Penalty, enhancement of---Requirements---Inquiry Officer had recommended penalty for forfeiture of past service of two years but the Competent Authority enhanced the penalty and dismissed the employee---Contention of employee was that he was not afforded opportunity to cross-examine the witness produced by the department---Validity---When witness was produced by one party, the other would be entitled to cross-examine such witness---Employee had been deprived of his right to cross-examine the witness produced by the other side---Inquiry could not be held in an arbitrary manner and principles of natural justice must be followed---Fair chance of cross-examination and production of evidence in rebuttal must be provided---Inquiry had not been conducted in accordance with procedure provided under S.10 of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006---Competent authority had not considered that charge sheet was defective and inquiry officer without cross-examination had compiled his final report---Competent authority had to weigh the recommendations of Inquiry Officer and it could not differ with the same without assigning any reasons---Department had not properly examined the defence of the employee---No reasons had been given for disagreeing with the recommendations of inquiry officer---Competent Authority could either proceed in terms of S.13(5)(i) and (ii) or could have proceeded in terms of S.13(6) of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 and remand the inquiry or could have directed de novo inquiry after recording reasons in writing if merits of the case had been ignored or there were other sufficient grounds---Having not agreed with finding and recommendations made in the inquiry report the Competent Authority instead of following the option available to him under S.13(6) of Punjab…