SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.--- Mr. Khalid Javed, learned Advocate Supreme Court has submitted that the petitioner being a civil servant was proceeded against departmentally on the charge that he had created fictitious refunds for Messer Sidra Trading Corporation for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90. To said charge, the petitioner had requested for copies of certain documents from the official record without which he could not prepare his defence. However, the inquiry proceeded without provision of the documents requested by the petitioner in which the conclusion was reached that the afore-mentioned company was a fictitious one and hence the attempt by the petitioner to create the refunds were totally unwarranted and bogus. Consequently, the charge of inefficiency and misconduct, was established and major penalty was recommended, as a result thereof, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Service Tribunal but met without success and hence this petition.
2. In support of the petition, learned Advocate Supreme Court has submitted that the Petitioner was not given any chance to cross-examine the official witnesses and in fact he was not even allowed to lead his own evidence which is in negation of Rule 6 of the E and D Rules. Secondly, per learned Advocate Supreme Court there is sufficient evidence available on the record to establish that the company afore-mentioned was not a fictitious one and hence the charge could not be established. In support of his submission, learned Advocate Supreme Court has relied upon, Jam Manzoor Ahmad v. Director (Food), Punjab, Lahore and another 1996 SCMR 447, dMuhammad Attaullah v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and 2 others 1999 SCMR 2321, Tariq Mehmood v. District Police Officer, Toba Tek Singh and another 2008 PLC (C.S.) 921 and Naseeb Khan v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore and another 2008 SCMR 1369.
3. We have heard learned Advocate Supreme Court and perused the judgment of the learned Service Tribunal as well as report of the Inquiry Officer. Prima facie it appears that the petitioner was not given a chance to cross-examine the official witnesses and neither allowed to lead his own evidence. Consequently, we would grant leave. The petition is converted into an Appeal. To be listed in due course.