ZIA-UL-ISLAMHASHMI vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld the compulsory retirement of a Police Inspector for grave misconduct. The petitioner, a police officer, was penalized for using a stolen or custom-evaded vehicle that displayed a fake registration number and police signals. The core legal question was whether the departmental authority was justified in imposing the major penalty of compulsory retirement without conducting a formal regular enquiry. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the petitioner failed to rebut evidence linking him to the vehicle, which was spotted by a Traffic Magistrate. The Court held that the departmental authority acted within its discretion, as the holding of a regular enquiry was not mandatory given the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the Court found no question of law of public importance warranting interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed, affirming that departmental penalties for misconduct, when supported by factual findings, remain within the administrative domain.
- Is a regular departmental enquiry mandatory before imposing a major penalty under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975 in all cases of misconduct?
- Does the use of a stolen or custom-evaded vehicle by a police officer constitute grave misconduct justifying compulsory retirement?
- What criteria must be met for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal against a judgment of a Service Tribunal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Rule 4(1)(a), Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975
- Rule 4(1)(b), Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975
- Article 212(3), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment dated 4-1- 2002, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in Service Appeal No,3226 of 2000.
2. The petitioner while posted as Police Inspector in District Sahiwal was proceeded against departmentally for grave misconduct for using stolen/custom evaded car and displaying a fake registration number of the vehicle. The reply of the petitioner to the show-cause notice issued by the departmental authority was found unsatisfactory. He was awarded the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service by order dated 21-6-2000 passed by the Deputy Inspector- General of Police, Multan Range. A criminal case F.I.R. No,119 of 2000, dated 21-4-2000 was also registered at Police Station, Old Anarkali, Lahore, under sections 420, 468 & 471 P.P.C. In respect of the same vehicle. The petitioner filed a Regular Service Appeal. No,3226 of 2000 before the Tribunal against the departmental penalty of compulsory retirement which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 4-1-2002.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no regular enquiry was conducted into the allegations against the petitioner. There were no cogent reasons to justify the imposition, upon the petitioner, of the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service. There was nothing on record to demonstrate that the petitioner had been using the non-custom paid vehicle displaying Registration No,LHW-947. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was already at the verge of his retirement who had rendered meritorious services to the police department for more than 29 years. The authorities had no legal justification to register a criminal case in order to implicate the petitioner.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
' The record of the case shows that the vehicle in question, was spotted by Mr. Aftab Ahmad, Traffic Magistrate, Lahore, carrying a Police Sticker and a blue revolving light commonly used by the police. The Registration number of the vehicle with its chassis and engine were found to be fake.
The Competent Authority found that the petitioner had put in 29 years of service who had outlived his utility, The Tribunal recorded finding of fact that the petitioner had failed to show that he was not concerned with the doubtful vehicle and that the situation was aggravated by his use .Of the said vehicle and displaying the police signal, i.e,, blue light on the same. It was further observed by the Tribunal that there was no mala fide on the part of Traffic Magistrate, Lahore, in the matter. The driver of the car when hauled up also disclosed that the vehicle in question belonged to the petitioner. The petitioner was rightly awarded the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service in terms of rule 4 (1) (a) &. (b) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 as the holding of a regular enquiry was not necessary in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. No question of law of public importance is involved in this case so as to warrant any interference by this Court with the impugned judgment in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
5. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.