The Inquiry Officer occupies a central position in a regular departmental inquiry under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2020. The Inquiry Officer is responsible for conducting the inquiry in accordance with the governing Rules, examining the evidence relating to the charges and defence, providing the accused an effective opportunity of defence, and submitting the inquiry report to the competent authority.
The 2020 Rules expressly regulate the appointment, procedure and powers of the Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee. Rule 9 addresses the order of inquiry, Rule 10 prescribes the procedure during the inquiry, Rule 12 confers specified powers comparable to those of a civil court, and Rule 15 separately defines the duties of the departmental representative.
Recent Supreme Court jurisprudence has placed particular emphasis on the requirement that an Inquiry Officer conduct the proceedings fairly, even-handedly and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. In Muhammad Abid v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 2026 SCMR 461, the Supreme Court expressly observed that the competent authority needs to ensure that a person appointed as Inquiry Officer is familiar with the basic requirements of departmental inquiry and held that denial of cross-examination constituted a serious violation of the employee’s right of defence.
Although Muhammad Abid concerned the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa disciplinary framework, the judgment expressly discussed the corresponding inquiry principles contained in civil-servant disciplinary rules and referred to Federation of Pakistan through Chairman FBR v. Zahid Malik, 2023 SCMR 603 and Ghulam Murtaza Sheikh v. Chief Minister, Sindh, 2024 SCMR 1757.
Who Is an Inquiry Officer?
An Inquiry Officer is the person appointed under the applicable disciplinary rules to conduct a regular departmental inquiry into specified charges against a civil servant.
Under Rule 9 of the federal E&D Rules 2020, where the competent authority decides that an inquiry is necessary, it passes a written order of inquiry. The order provides for the appointment of an Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee and sets out the grounds of proceedings, clearly specified charges and apportionment of responsibility.
The appointment is therefore not an independent or informal investigation. It forms part of a statutory disciplinary process.
Appointment of the Inquiry Officer Under Rule 9
Rule 9 requires the order of inquiry to identify the Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee.
The Rules also contemplate that, as far as possible, an Inquiry Officer or the convener of an Inquiry Committee is senior in rank to the accused. This requirement becomes particularly relevant where the officer facing proceedings holds a relatively senior position.
The federal framework consequently treats the status and appointment of the Inquiry Officer as a matter connected with the legality and regularity of the inquiry rather than merely an internal administrative assignment.
Inquiry Officer and Impartiality
An Inquiry Officer does not function as an advocate for either side.
The purpose of a regular inquiry is to determine whether the charges communicated to the accused are established on the evidence produced during the proceedings. The Inquiry Officer therefore has to consider both the departmental case and the defence.
The Supreme Court in Muhammad Abid, 2026 SCMR 461 emphasized that departmental inquiries require an “even-handed and fair opportunity” for the accused and criticized the conduct of an inquiry where the accused was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Court further stated that the competent authority needs to exercise due diligence when selecting an Inquiry Officer.
Impartiality is therefore not limited to the absence of a formal conflict of interest. The conduct of the inquiry itself must reflect a fair consideration of the allegations and defence.
What Are the Main Duties of an Inquiry Officer?
The central duties of an Inquiry Officer arise from Rule 10 and the structure of the Rules.
They include:
receiving and considering the written defence;
inquiring into the specified charges;
examining oral and documentary evidence;
recording statements of witnesses in accordance with the Rules;
providing the accused an opportunity to cross-examine departmental witnesses;
allowing the defence to produce its evidence;
considering relevant material produced by either side;
maintaining an orderly inquiry record; and
preparing and submitting the inquiry report within the prescribed framework.
The Inquiry Officer’s function therefore combines investigation of the facts with procedural safeguards protecting the accused civil servant.
Procedure Before the Inquiry Officer Under Rule 10
Rule 10 establishes the principal procedure after an inquiry has been ordered.
Upon receipt of the written defence, or upon expiry of the specified period where no defence is received, the Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee proceeds into the charges.
The Inquiry Officer may examine oral or documentary evidence supporting the charges or the defence. Where a witness is produced by one side, the other side is entitled to cross-examine that witness. Statements of witnesses are recorded in the presence of the accused and the departmental representative.
This makes the regular inquiry materially different from a preliminary fact-finding exercise.
Inquiry Officer and the Right of Cross-Examination
Cross-examination is one of the most significant procedural safeguards in a regular departmental inquiry.
In Muhammad Abid, 2026 SCMR 461, three witnesses had been examined, but the employee had not been given an opportunity to cross-examine them. The Supreme Court treated this as a violation of the right of defence and directed a de novo inquiry after providing adequate opportunity for defence.
The Court described cross-examination as an essential means of testing the reliability and veracity of witness testimony and emphasized that the denial of that opportunity is not a trivial procedural irregularity where the evidence is relied upon against the accused.
The same principle appears in Federation of Pakistan through Chairman FBR v. Zahid Malik, 2023 SCMR 603, where the Supreme Court examined the inquiry procedure under the former 1973 Rules and discussed the corresponding protections preserved in the 2020 Rules.
Inquiry Officer and Documentary Evidence
Rule 10 permits examination of documentary as well as oral evidence.
The Inquiry Officer therefore considers documents produced in support of the departmental allegations and documents relied upon by the accused in defence.
The relevance and evidentiary value of a document depend upon the particular charge and the circumstances in which the document is relied upon. A document placed on the record does not automatically resolve every factual dispute arising from it.
Where the authenticity, meaning or source of a document remains disputed and a witness is necessary to establish the relevant fact, the procedural right to examine and cross-examine the witness can become important.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Saeed Ahmed v. Nestle Pakistan Limited, 2026 SCMR 105, although arising under labour law rather than the federal E&D Rules, provides a recent illustration of this evidentiary principle. The Court held that where contradictory medical bills existed, the employer’s failure to call the relevant clinic witness affected the proof of the alleged misconduct and emphasized the importance of testing evidence through cross-examination.
Powers of the Inquiry Officer Under Rule 12
Rule 12 grants the Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee specified powers of a civil court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
These powers include:
| Power | Rule 12 |
|---|---|
| Summoning and enforcing attendance of a person | 12(1)(a) |
| Examining a person on oath | 12(1)(a) |
| Requiring discovery and production of documents | 12(1)(b) |
| Receiving evidence on affidavits | 12(1)(b) |
| Issuing commissions for examination of witnesses or documents | 12(1)(c) |
The proceedings under the E&D Rules are also deemed to be judicial proceedings for purposes of sections 193 and 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.
These powers give the Inquiry Officer an evidentiary framework considerably more formal than an ordinary internal administrative investigation.
Does the Inquiry Officer Have Unlimited Powers?
No.
Rule 12 confers specified powers for the purposes of the inquiry. It does not turn the Inquiry Officer into a general civil court.
The powers relate to the matters expressly identified in Rule 12. Their exercise remains connected with determining the charges and defence in the disciplinary proceeding.
More importantly, the Inquiry Officer remains bound by the governing E&D Rules and the principles of natural justice. The possession of procedural powers does not authorize the Inquiry Officer to disregard the accused’s statutory and constitutional rights.
Can the Inquiry Officer Investigate Allegations Not Included in the Charge?
The Inquiry Officer’s jurisdiction is tied to the charges forming the subject matter of the disciplinary proceeding.
In Faisal Ali v. District Police Officer, Gujrat, 2025 SCMR 92, the Supreme Court emphasized that departmental action is required to remain within the allegations contained in the show-cause notice or statement of allegations. The Court explained that an employee is entitled to know the allegations against which the defence is required.
The principle has particular relevance to an Inquiry Officer.
The inquiry is not an opportunity to create an entirely new case against the accused without providing the procedural safeguards applicable to that new allegation.
Can the Inquiry Officer Call Additional Witnesses?
Rule 10 permits the Inquiry Officer to examine oral and documentary evidence considered necessary for the inquiry. Rule 12 further provides powers concerning attendance and examination of persons.
Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer may examine evidence necessary for determining the charges.
This function also means that the Inquiry Officer is not necessarily confined to accepting whatever evidence the departmental representative chooses to produce. The central objective remains determination of the charges through a lawful and fair process.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Saeed Ahmed, 2026 SCMR 105 illustrates the importance of calling a material witness where existing documentary evidence is contradictory and the witness is necessary to resolve the factual dispute.
Role of the Departmental Representative
The Inquiry Officer is distinct from the Departmental Representative.
Rule 15 specifically assigns duties to the Departmental Representative, including assistance to the Inquiry Officer or Committee, presence during the proceedings, maintaining relevant record, cross-examining defence witnesses and, with permission, cross-examining prosecution witnesses and rebutting the defence.
The Departmental Representative therefore presents and supports the departmental case.
The Inquiry Officer, by contrast, conducts the inquiry and determines whether the evidence establishes the charges.
This distinction is fundamental to maintaining the neutrality of the inquiry process.
Inquiry Officer and the Accused’s Defence
The accused is entitled to an effective opportunity to defend against the charges.
Under Rule 10, the accused may participate in the inquiry and present evidence in defence. Where departmental witnesses are produced, the accused receives the corresponding opportunity of cross-examination.
In Muhammad Abid, 2026 SCMR 461, the Supreme Court described the right to defend and cross-examine witnesses as an essential component of a regular departmental inquiry and held that denial of this right amounted to violation of Article 10-A.
The Court therefore directed a fresh inquiry rather than treating the defect as an insignificant technical irregularity.
Ex-Parte Inquiry
An Inquiry Officer may proceed ex parte where the accused does not participate in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Rules.
However, ex parte does not mean absence of procedural safeguards.
The Supreme Court demonstrated this distinction in Director General, Intelligence Bureau v. Babar, 2025 SCMR 353. The employee was incarcerated and the departmental inquiry proceeded ex parte despite circumstances that prevented meaningful participation. The Supreme Court held that conducting the regular inquiry in those circumstances without providing a practical opportunity of defence violated due process and natural justice and ordered a de novo inquiry.
The relevant question is consequently not merely whether the proceedings were labelled “ex parte,” but whether the circumstances legally justified proceeding without the accused’s participation.
Inquiry Officer and Bias
An allegation of bias against an Inquiry Officer is a serious procedural issue.
The question is not limited to whether the accused disagrees with the Inquiry Officer’s findings. A lawful challenge requires examination of the circumstances indicating actual bias, reasonable apprehension of bias, conflict of interest, predetermined conclusions or conduct inconsistent with an impartial inquiry.
The Supreme Court in Muhammad Abid, 2026 SCMR 461 referred to the need for a fair, even-handed and properly conducted inquiry and criticized the defective appointment and conduct of the inquiry in that case.
A mere adverse finding is therefore not, by itself, proof of bias.
Time Limit for Completing the Inquiry
Rule 10(7) provides a framework for completion of the inquiry within 60 days, subject to an extension allowed by the authority in accordance with the Rule. The Rule also provides that failure to observe the time schedule does not, by itself, vitiate the inquiry.
The federal government has also issued administrative instructions concerning delays. FBR noted that Inquiry Officers were required to complete proceedings within the prescribed 60-day period or obtain an extension from the authority and warned that inordinate delay could itself result in disciplinary consequences.
Therefore, two questions remain distinct:
Was the prescribed timeline observed?
and
What legal consequence, if any, follows from delay in the particular case?
The second question cannot be answered merely by establishing that the 60-day period was exceeded.
Inquiry Report
After completion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer prepares the inquiry report for submission to the competent authority.
The report addresses the charges and the evidence and records findings concerning whether the charges are proved or not proved. It also contains the recommendations required under the Rules concerning exoneration or the imposition of a minor or major penalty.
The report therefore represents the conclusion of the evidentiary stage.
It does not itself constitute the final disciplinary penalty order.
Is the Inquiry Officer’s Report Final?
No.
The competent authority remains responsible for taking the disciplinary decision under the E&D Rules.
Rule 16 governs the action of the authority after receipt of the inquiry report. The authority examines the report and relevant material and proceeds in accordance with the prescribed procedure before imposing a penalty or exonerating the accused.
The Inquiry Officer consequently performs an adjudicatory fact-finding function within the disciplinary process, but the statutory decision to impose the penalty remains with the competent authority.
Can the Competent Authority Disagree With the Inquiry Report?
The competent authority’s role is not mechanically limited to accepting every recommendation contained in the inquiry report.
Rule 16 governs the authority’s action following receipt of the report and provides the framework for considering the findings and proceeding toward exoneration or disciplinary penalty.
Where the authority proposes an adverse action, the procedural safeguards specified in Rule 16 and Rule 17 become relevant, including the applicable show-cause and personal-hearing requirements.
The legal position therefore distinguishes:
Inquiry Officer’s findings
from
competent authority’s final disciplinary decision.
Standard of Proof Before the Inquiry Officer
The Supreme Court has repeatedly distinguished departmental proceedings from criminal trials.
In Faisal Ali, 2025 SCMR 92, the Supreme Court stated that the standard in departmental proceedings is generally balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Inquiry Officer therefore assesses whether the evidence makes the departmental allegation more probable than not within the applicable disciplinary framework.
That does not mean that allegations can be established through unsupported suspicion. The finding still requires evidentiary support in the disciplinary record.
Inquiry Officer and Natural Justice
A lawful departmental inquiry incorporates the principles of natural justice.
Among the most important safeguards are:
notice of the allegations;
opportunity to submit a defence;
access to relevant procedural material;
opportunity to present evidence;
cross-examination of witnesses relied upon against the accused;
impartial consideration of the evidence; and
a reasoned inquiry report.
The Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence reinforces these safeguards. In Muhammad Abid, 2026 SCMR 461, denial of cross-examination resulted in the removal order being set aside and the matter being remanded for a de novo inquiry.
Can an Inquiry Officer Recommend Any Penalty?
The inquiry report may contain recommendations concerning exoneration or the imposition of a minor or major penalty in accordance with the Rules.
The recommendation nevertheless remains subject to the competent authority’s statutory decision-making role.
The classification of the recommended penalty also needs to correspond with Rule 4, which distinguishes minor and major penalties under the federal E&D Rules 2020.
The appropriate penalty depends upon the proved misconduct and the applicable statutory framework.
Common Grounds for Challenging an Inquiry
A challenge to a departmental inquiry may involve questions concerning:
| Issue | Question |
|---|---|
| Appointment | Was the Inquiry Officer appointed according to the governing rules? |
| Seniority | Was the required seniority consideration observed? |
| Jurisdiction | Did the federal E&D Rules actually govern the employee? |
| Charges | Did the inquiry remain confined to the communicated charges? |
| Defence | Was the accused given an effective opportunity to defend? |
| Evidence | Was relevant evidence examined properly? |
| Witnesses | Were witnesses examined in accordance with the Rules? |
| Cross-examination | Was the accused permitted to cross-examine witnesses relied upon against him? |
| Impartiality | Was the inquiry conducted fairly and without demonstrated bias? |
| Ex-parte proceedings | Were the circumstances sufficient to justify proceeding without the accused? |
| Inquiry report | Does the report address the evidence and each charge? |
| Findings | Are the findings supported by the record? |
| Time | Was the Rule 10 timeline observed or properly extended? |
| Final order | Did the competent authority follow Rule 16 and the applicable hearing requirements? |
Not every irregularity has an identical legal consequence. The applicable rule, nature of the defect, materiality of the evidence and effect upon the accused’s defence require examination in the particular case.
Inquiry Officer vs Departmental Representative
The distinction can be summarized:
| Inquiry Officer | Departmental Representative |
|---|---|
| Conducts the inquiry | Presents/supports departmental case |
| Examines evidence | Produces/replies to evidence for department |
| Ensures procedural fairness | Assists Inquiry Officer |
| Records findings | Cross-examines defence witnesses |
| Prepares inquiry report | Rebuts defence with permission where applicable |
| Remains responsible for the inquiry process | Represents the department’s disciplinary position |
The separation of these functions helps preserve the distinction between presenting the allegation and determining whether it has been established.
Federal E&D Rules and Provincial Inquiries
The federal E&D Rules 2020 do not apply to every government employee in Pakistan.
A federal civil servant falls within the federal service framework subject to the scope of the Civil Servants Act and applicable rules. Provincial employees, members of disciplined forces and employees of autonomous or statutory bodies may fall under separate disciplinary legislation.
Consequently, a judgment concerning Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or another specialized service regime needs to be read with the relevant statutory provisions before being applied to a federal E&D case.
This point is particularly important when relying upon Muhammad Abid, 2026 SCMR 461 or Faisal Ali, 2025 SCMR 92: both provide significant Supreme Court guidance on departmental inquiry and natural justice, but the exact disciplinary rules in the underlying cases differ from the federal 2020 Rules.
Conclusion
The Inquiry Officer under the E&D Rules 2020 performs a central fact-finding and procedural role in federal departmental proceedings. Rule 9 establishes the mechanism for appointment and the order of inquiry, Rule 10 prescribes the conduct of the inquiry, Rule 12 provides specified civil-court powers, and Rule 15 identifies the separate duties of the Departmental Representative.
The Inquiry Officer’s role is not simply to collect material for the department. The regular inquiry requires a fair opportunity for the accused to defend the charges and, where witnesses are relied upon, to exercise the right of cross-examination. Recent Supreme Court authority has treated denial of that opportunity as a serious violation of due process. Muhammad Abid, 2026 SCMR 461 is particularly significant on the need for a properly conducted and even-handed inquiry and the importance of selecting an Inquiry Officer familiar with the requirements of departmental proceedings.
Likewise, Faisal Ali, 2025 SCMR 92 confirms the importance of keeping disciplinary proceedings within the allegations communicated to the accused and distinguishes regular departmental inquiry from preliminary fact-finding exercises.
A legal assessment of an inquiry therefore requires examination of the order of inquiry, charge-sheet and statement of allegations, appointment of the Inquiry Officer, written defence, evidence, witness statements, cross-examination, inquiry proceedings, inquiry report and final disciplinary order as a connected record rather than in isolation.
Contact Anchan Law
For legal assistance concerning departmental inquiries, appointment or conduct of an Inquiry Officer, charge-sheets, statements of allegations, inquiry reports, disciplinary penalties, promotion or seniority disputes, or proceedings before the Federal Service Tribunal and superior courts, formal representation and legal consultation may be arranged through Anchan Law, Islamabad. The complete disciplinary record can be examined in light of the applicable service law, procedural requirements and available remedies.