FARZAND ALI vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OKARA and others
This petition is directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's service appeal against his compulsory retirement from police service. The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector, was penalized for arresting a criminal suspect without justification and subsequently releasing him for ulterior or corrupt motives. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the departmental inquiry and subsequent penalty of compulsory retirement suffered from procedural defects, such as the denial of cross-examination or lack of a regular inquiry, and whether the concurrent findings of fact by the departmental authorities and the Tribunal warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner did not deny the core factual allegations of arresting and releasing the suspect surreptitiously without justification, and that no prejudice or valid grounds were shown to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. Consequently, the Court laid down that concurrent findings of fact by departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal regarding police misconduct will not be disturbed in the absence of procedural prejudice or jurisdictional error, and a petition for leave to appeal is rightly dismissed where the charges are admitted or unrefuted.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal can be interfered with by the Supreme Court when the charges of misconduct are admitted?
- Whether the failure to conduct a regular inquiry or afford cross-examination vitiates disciplinary proceedings where no prejudice or mala fide is established?
- Does the unauthorized arrest and subsequent release of a criminal suspect by a police officer constitute misconduct warranting compulsory retirement?
- Rule 6(4), Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975
ORDER
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- This petition is directed against judgment, dated 13-12-2001, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No,742 of 2001.
2. The petitioner, while posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Chuchak, District Okara, was proceeded against on the charge that he had apprehended one Muhammad Nawaz alias Kali, who was already involved in a number of criminal cases. The petitioner locked him up in a room and then let him off for some ulterior/corrupt motive. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Legal) as Inquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of the charge. The respondent No,1, by order, dated 21-12- 1999, awarded him the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service, after issuance of final show-cause notice. The appeal and revision petition of the petitioner were dismissed by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 respectively, by orders dated 17-4-2000 and 21-3-2001. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Appeal No,742 of 2001, which was also dismissed by the Tribunal by impugned judgment dated 13-12-2001.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that during the course of enquiry the petitioner was not afforded the opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses who had deposed against the petitioner which was a violation of the provisions of Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The learned counsel submitted that Muhammad Nawaz alias. Kali was not required in any criminal case. He was, therefore, released by the petitioner which did not amount to any misconduct. It was next contended that Muhammad Nawaz alias Kali was found by the petitioner as having already been released, on bail, by the Courts in all the criminal cases. It was lastly submitted that no regular inquiry was conducted by any Inquiry Officer as required by Rule 6(4) of the Rules (ibid) and that the petitioner was not associated in the preliminary inquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Legal).
4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab submitted that no prejudice or mala fide was shown to have been caused to the petitioner in the matter of inquiry and subsequent proceedings which were taken against him. The petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing by the original, appellate and the revisional authorities. The respondent No,2 also got the matter inquired into by the Superintendent of Police (Discipline), Lahore Range, who also concurred with the findings of inquiry as were recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Legal).
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the material available on record. The Tribunal recorded findings of fact in para. 6 of the impugned judgment as follows:-- "(6) It is a matter of record that the appellhnt arrested Muhammad Nawaz Kali for no obvious reason except that of his previous record. Later, he allowed him to go on the assurance of one Ch. Muhammad Manzoor. The appellant has not denied these facts. It is also a fact that he did not bother to take even the S.H.O. In confidence before releasing the cattle lifter. Viewed in this context the conclusion is inevitable that he released Muhammad Nawaz Kali for obviously some ulterior motives, I therefore, hold that the impugned orders are unexceptionable."
6. There was no denial by the petitioner that Muhammad Nawaz alias Kali was arrested and locked up in a room surreptitiously, without any rhyme or reason. No exception can be taken to the concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the departmental authorities and by the Tribunal after taking the plea of the petitioner into consideration. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.
Cited by 1 case
- Piyaro Gurgaje vs Ghulam Qadir Gurgage 2022 SHC 114