It is an admitted fact that no regular inquiry was conducted by the petitioner Department and the same was dispensed with on the ground that the other evidence in the shape of CCTV footage is so authentic that major penalty can be imposed upon the respondent in the absence of regular inquiry and while imposing the major penalty CCTV footage was made the sole criterion to proceed against the respondent. It is an apathy that the said CCTV footage was never sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory for its authenticity. In the absence of any forensic report qua the authenticity of the CCTV footage, the same cannot be considered a legal basis for proceeding against a person. In the case of Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2019 SC 675) this Court has held that with the advancement of science and technology, it is now possible to get a forensic examination, audit or test conducted through an appropriate laboratory so as to get it ascertained as to whether an audio tape or a video is genuine or not and as such examination, audit or test can also reasonably establish if such audio tape or video has been edited, doctored or tampered with or not because advancement of science and technology has also made it very convenient and easy to edit, doctor, superimpose or photoshop a voice or picture in an audio tape or video, therefore, without a forensic examination, audit or test, it is becoming more and more unsafe to rely upon the same as a piece of evidence in a court of law. We have noticed that the CCTV footage was even not produced before the learned Federal Service Tribunal. Even otherwise, mere producing of CCTV footage as a piece of evidence without any forensic test is not sufficient to be relied upon unless and until corroborated and proved to be genuine. The passengers, who allegedly gave the bribe, had also not been associated with the departmental proceedings. No question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been raised either in this petition to warrant interference by this Court.
0 Comments