A Departmental Inquiry Under E&D Rules the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2020 is a formal disciplinary process through which allegations against a federal civil servant are examined and determined in accordance with the applicable service law. The 2020 Rules came into force on 11 December 2020 and replaced the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, subject to the transitional provisions contained in the 2020 Rules.
A Departmental Inquiry Under E&D Rules is distinct from a preliminary or fact-finding inquiry. A fact-finding exercise may assist the competent authority in determining whether disciplinary proceedings require initiation; a regular departmental inquiry concerns the determination of the charges through the procedure prescribed by the applicable disciplinary rules.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan has repeatedly emphasized that disciplinary proceedings must comply with the governing rules and the principles of natural justice. In Faisal Ali v. District Police Officer, Gujrat, 2025 SCMR 92, the Supreme Court held that departmental action cannot travel beyond the allegations communicated through the show-cause notice or statement of allegations and emphasized the accused employee’s right to a fair opportunity of defence and cross-examination.Departmental Inquiry Under E&D Rules
What Is a Departmental Inquiry?
A departmental inquiry is a disciplinary investigation conducted under the applicable service rules to determine whether allegations against a government employee are proved.
Under the federal E&D Rules 2020, Departmental Inquiry Under E&D Rules proceedings may arise on grounds including inefficiency, misconduct and corruption, as well as the other grounds specified in Rule 3. The competent authority determines whether the matter proceeds through an inquiry or falls within a situation in which the Rules permit the inquiry to be dispensed with.
The distinction is important because an internal investigation, preliminary inquiry and regular departmental inquiry do not necessarily have the same legal function.
Departmental Inquiry vs Fact-Finding Inquiry
The Supreme Court explained this distinction in Faisal Ali, 2025 SCMR 92.
A discreet or fact-finding inquiry generally serves the preliminary purpose of collecting information and determining whether there is sufficient material to initiate disciplinary proceedings. It does not itself ordinarily determine the guilt or innocence of the employee. Departmental Inquiry Under E&D Rules
A regular inquiry, by contrast, provides the mechanism for examining the charges and the defence of the accused. The Supreme Court observed that where witnesses are examined, the accused must receive a fair opportunity to cross-examine them. Departmental Inquiry Under E&D Rules Departmental Inquiry Under E&D Rules
Thus:
| Proceeding | Primary purpose |
|---|---|
| Discreet inquiry | Gathering information |
| Fact-finding inquiry | Establishing preliminary facts |
| Regular departmental inquiry | Determining the charges under the disciplinary framework |
The legal consequences of confusing these stages can become significant where a major penalty is imposed on the basis of material that was never tested through the procedure required by the applicable rules.
When Is a Departmental Inquiry Initiated?
Rule 6 of the federal E&D Rules 2020 provides the framework for initiation of proceedings.
Where the authority decides that an inquiry is not necessary, proceedings commence from the date on which the accused is informed by written order of the grounds of proceedings.
Where the authority decides that an inquiry is necessary, proceedings commence from the date of the written order directing the inquiry.
The written disciplinary process therefore identifies the allegations and establishes the procedural route through which the case proceeds.
Appointment of the Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee
Where the authority decides that a regular inquiry is necessary, Rule 9 requires an order of inquiry in writing.
The order includes the appointment of an inquiry officer or inquiry committee and identifies the grounds for proceedings and the charges. The Rules contemplate, as far as possible, an inquiry officer or convener senior in rank to the accused.
The identity and authority of the inquiry officer therefore form part of the legal record of the disciplinary proceedings.
What Does the Charge Need to Contain?
A disciplinary proceeding is founded upon the allegations and charges communicated to the civil servant.
The Supreme Court in Faisal Ali, 2025 SCMR 92 emphasized that the departmental action must remain confined to the allegations communicated in the show-cause notice or statement of allegations. An employee cannot reasonably be expected to defend against allegations that were never communicated to him.
This principle has a direct procedural significance.
If the charge concerns one act, while the eventual penalty order relies substantially upon another act or a different factual basis, the question arises whether the employee received a meaningful opportunity to answer the allegation on which the adverse action was ultimately based.
The Supreme Court treated such a discrepancy as a material defect in Faisal Ali.
Supply of the Relevant Record
Rule 8 addresses the provision of record after initiation of proceedings.
The authority is required to ensure that the relevant record and related documents are supplied to the inquiry officer or inquiry committee within the period prescribed by the Rules.
Access to the material underlying the allegations is also important from the perspective of a meaningful defence. In Federation of Pakistan through Chairman FBR v. Zahid Malik, 2023 SCMR 603, the Supreme Court considered the procedural requirements applicable to departmental inquiry and emphasized the importance of adherence to the inquiry procedure, including the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
Procedure Before the Inquiry Officer
Rule 10 provides the principal procedure to be followed by the inquiry officer or inquiry committee.
After receiving the accused’s written defence, or after expiry of the prescribed period where no reply is received, the inquiry officer or committee proceeds to inquire into the charges.
The inquiry officer or committee may examine oral or documentary evidence supporting the charges or the defence. Where a witness is produced by one party, the other party is entitled to cross-examine that witness. Witness statements are recorded in the presence of the accused and the departmental representative.
These provisions make the regular inquiry fundamentally different from a purely administrative assessment based upon an undisclosed file.
Right of Cross-Examination
Cross-examination is an important procedural safeguard in a regular departmental inquiry where witnesses are relied upon.
In Federation of Pakistan through Chairman FBR v. Zahid Malik, 2023 SCMR 603, the Supreme Court examined an inquiry in which the prescribed procedure had not been followed and emphasized the importance of the accused’s opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and participate effectively in the inquiry.
The precise procedural requirements nevertheless depend on the governing service rules and the nature of the material relied upon in the particular proceeding.
Ex-Parte Departmental Inquiry
Rule 10 provides that where the accused fails to furnish a reply within the stipulated period, the inquiry officer or inquiry committee may proceed ex parte.
Ex-parte proceedings do not mean that the disciplinary authority can disregard the governing rules. The inquiry remains subject to the requirements applicable to disciplinary proceedings, including proper consideration of the charges and the available evidence.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Faisal Ali, 2025 SCMR 92 is particularly relevant where a proceeding described as regular was actually conducted without associating the accused with the inquiry or providing an opportunity to defend.
Time Limit for Completing the Inquiry
Rule 10(7) provides a period of 60 days for completion of the inquiry, subject to an extension allowed by the authority in accordance with the Rule. The inquiry officer is required to submit the inquiry report after completion within the period prescribed by the Rules.
The federal government has itself emphasized compliance with this timetable. In 2021, FBR issued instructions noting that Rule 10(7) requires inquiry proceedings to be completed within 60 days or within an extended period allowed by the authority and expressed concern over inordinate delays in disciplinary inquiries.
The existence of a statutory time framework does not mean every delay automatically invalidates proceedings; the effect of delay depends upon the applicable rule, the circumstances of the case and the prejudice, if any, resulting from the delay.
Can a Departmental Inquiry Be Dispensed With?
Yes, but only within the circumstances recognized by the Rules.
Where the authority determines that an inquiry is unnecessary, Rule 7 provides an alternative procedure. The accused is informed in writing of the grounds of proceedings, the charges, the apportionment of responsibility and the proposed penalty or penalties, and is provided an opportunity to show cause. The Rule also addresses personal hearing.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Aurangzeb, 2025 SCMR 40 is important on the broader question of dispensing with a regular inquiry. The Court held that dispensing with an inquiry requires a rational basis and emphasized that where the allegations cannot fairly be determined merely from obvious and reliable documentary material, a regular inquiry and a meaningful opportunity of defence become important.
That judgment concerned the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa disciplinary rules rather than the federal E&D Rules 2020. It therefore does not constitute a direct interpretation of every provision of the federal Rules, although its discussion of natural justice and departmental inquiry is relevant to Pakistani service-law jurisprudence.
Exceptions Under Rule 13
Rule 13 provides specific situations in which Rules 7 and 9 do not apply.
These include cases involving dismissal or removal arising from conduct that has resulted in a sentence of fine or imprisonment, and circumstances where the competent authority records reasons that it is not reasonably practicable to provide the accused with an opportunity of showing cause.
Because Rule 13 creates exceptions to the ordinary procedure, its exact requirements need to be considered carefully whenever an authority seeks to dispense with ordinary disciplinary safeguards.
Standard of Proof in a Departmental Inquiry
A departmental inquiry does not generally apply the criminal-law standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In Faisal Ali, 2025 SCMR 92, the Supreme Court stated that the standard in departmental proceedings is based upon the balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
This distinction is important where the same factual circumstances give rise to both criminal and departmental proceedings. The two proceedings have different purposes and different evidentiary standards.
A criminal court’s determination and a departmental authority’s determination therefore cannot automatically be treated as applying identical legal tests.
Relationship Between Criminal and Departmental Proceedings
A criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceeding serve different legal purposes.
The Supreme Court has recognized that, depending upon the governing service rules, departmental proceedings can in some circumstances continue notwithstanding criminal proceedings arising from related facts. The particular effect of an acquittal or conviction depends upon the applicable disciplinary framework and the reason for the criminal court’s decision.
The question therefore requires examination of:
the criminal charge → the departmental charge → the evidence relied upon → the applicable service rules → the nature of the criminal judgment.
A general proposition that “acquittal automatically ends departmental proceedings” is therefore too broad.
Inquiry Report
At the conclusion of the proceedings, the inquiry officer or inquiry committee prepares its report in accordance with Rule 10.
The report identifies whether the charges have been proved or not proved and contains the recommendations required by the Rules. The authority then considers the inquiry report under the subsequent provisions of the E&D Rules.
The inquiry report is therefore not merely an administrative formality. Its findings provide the factual and procedural basis upon which the competent authority considers the disciplinary consequences.
Is the Inquiry Officer’s Recommendation Final?
No.
The inquiry officer investigates and reports; the competent authority takes the disciplinary decision in accordance with the Rules.
The Supreme Court in Faisal Ali, 2025 SCMR 92 recognized that punishment ordinarily falls within the domain of the competent authority, while also explaining that a Tribunal or Court may examine whether the punishment or disciplinary action is unreasonable, disproportionate or contrary to law.
The inquiry officer’s recommendation therefore does not replace the statutory decision-making function of the competent authority.
Natural Justice in Departmental Proceedings
The principles of natural justice remain central to disciplinary proceedings.
The two fundamental considerations are:
Audi alteram partem — the affected employee receives a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Nemo judex in causa sua — the decision-making process remains consistent with impartiality and lawful authority.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly linked these principles with Article 10A of the Constitution in cases involving disciplinary or quasi-judicial proceedings. In Federation of Pakistan v. Zahid Malik, 2023 SCMR 603, the Court stressed the requirement of a fair and legally compliant inquiry and referred to natural justice as an essential component of a lawful disciplinary process.
Common Procedural Issues in Departmental Inquiries
The legal validity of a departmental proceeding may depend upon issues such as:
| Issue | Legal question |
|---|---|
| Competent authority | Was the proceeding initiated by the authority legally empowered to do so? |
| Charge | Were the allegations clearly communicated? |
| Record | Was relevant material supplied where required? |
| Inquiry officer | Was the appointment made under the governing Rules? |
| Defence | Was a meaningful opportunity to answer provided? |
| Witnesses | Was the right of cross-examination respected where applicable? |
| Evidence | Was the finding supported by material on record? |
| Inquiry report | Does it address the charges and evidence? |
| Penalty | Is the penalty authorized by law and reasonably connected with the proved misconduct? |
| Appeal | Was the statutory appellate remedy available and within limitation? |
A defect in one part of the process does not necessarily produce the same legal consequence in every case. The governing service rules, the nature of the defect and the effect upon the employee’s defence remain relevant.
Departmental Inquiry and Judicial Review
A civil servant challenging disciplinary action may invoke the statutory service-law remedy applicable to the relevant service, including proceedings before the Federal Service Tribunal where its jurisdiction is attracted.
The Tribunal and constitutional courts do not simply substitute their own view for every administrative decision. The scope of judicial scrutiny depends upon the jurisdiction invoked and the nature of the challenge.
In Faisal Ali, 2025 SCMR 92, the Supreme Court recognized that disciplinary punishment ordinarily lies within the competent authority’s domain but remains subject to judicial or tribunal scrutiny where the action is contrary to law, unreasonable or disproportionate.
Federal E&D Rules 2020 and Provincial Employees
The federal E&D Rules 2020 do not constitute a universal disciplinary code for every government employee in Pakistan.
They operate within the federal civil-service framework. Provincial civil servants may instead be governed by the relevant provincial legislation and disciplinary rules.
Consequently, before relying upon Rule 7, Rule 9, Rule 10, Rule 13 or another provision of the federal E&D Rules, the employee’s:
department → cadre → appointing authority → applicable service law → disciplinary rules
require identification.
This distinction becomes particularly important where the employee works for a provincial department, autonomous body, corporation, local authority or another organization governed by a separate statutory regime.
Conclusion
A departmental inquiry under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2020 is a structured legal process rather than a purely administrative fact-finding exercise. The Rules prescribe the circumstances in which proceedings are initiated, the appointment of an inquiry officer or committee, the framing and communication of charges, the examination of evidence, cross-examination, the preparation of an inquiry report and the subsequent decision of the competent authority.
The Supreme Court’s recent service-law jurisprudence reinforces several important principles: disciplinary action must remain connected to the allegations communicated to the employee; a regular inquiry ordinarily requires a fair opportunity of defence; witnesses relied upon in the inquiry attract the corresponding right of cross-examination; and the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is generally the balance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Faisal Ali v. District Police Officer, 2025 SCMR 92 is particularly significant on these questions.
The legal assessment of a disciplinary case therefore requires more than identifying the penalty imposed. The complete record—including the show-cause notice, charge-sheet or statement of allegations, inquiry order, evidence, witness statements, inquiry report, final penalty order and departmental appeal—may be relevant to determining whether the proceedings conform to the governing service law.
Contact Anchan Law
For legal assistance concerning departmental inquiries, E&D proceedings, show-cause notices, charge-sheets, inquiry reports, disciplinary penalties, promotion or seniority disputes, or related proceedings before the Federal Service Tribunal and superior courts, formal representation and legal consultation may be arranged through Anchan Law, Islamabad. Relevant departmental orders, notices, inquiry documents, penalty orders and service records can be examined in light of the applicable service law and available remedies.