'Cross-examination can't be denied'

The Supreme Court has ruled that denying the opportunity of cross-examination to a witness constitutes a violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial.

A five-page judgment authored by Justice Salahuddin Panwar, while setting aside the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, noted that the cross-examination was the highest and most indispensable test known to the law for the discovery of truth.

The top court said that the reliability of evidence can only be judged through cross-examination, which is essential to reveal the truth and test the credibility of allegations.

This is especially important when the possibility cannot be ruled out in the inquiry that a 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 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.