SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, HOME DEPARTEMNT, LAHORE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Home Department, challenging the judgment of the Service Tribunal which had set aside the compulsory retirement of a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal erred in its assessment that the grounds for the respondent's compulsory retirement were unsubstantiated and vague. Upon reviewing the record, the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's findings, noting that the allegations against the respondent—concerning fake police encounters, the release of terrorists, and the accumulation of illegal property—were bald, unspecific, and entirely unsupported by any material evidence. The Court observed that even reports from secret agencies failed to provide specific details or identification regarding the alleged misconduct. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's decision and held that the petitioners failed to establish grounds for interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
- Can a civil servant be compulsorily retired based on vague and unspecific allegations without supporting material?
- Does the Service Tribunal have the authority to examine the evidentiary basis for a compulsory retirement order?
- What standard must be met to grant leave to appeal against a Service Tribunal decision under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---The learned Service Tribunal held a detailed inquiry into the reasons which had led to the compulsory retirement of the respondent-DSP and having examined the entire record of the respondent's long service in the Police Department, found that the grounds which had allegedly led to the impugned compulsory retirement of the respondent were vague, unspecific and bald accusations and not even an iota of material was available on record in support of the same. Even the so-called secret agency which had reported against the respondent had never even mentioned the names of the persons allegedly killed by the respondent in fake police encounters or the names of the terrorists of bomb blasts who had been released by the respondent or the identification or description of the property which the respondent had allegedly accumulated through illegal gratification received by him.
2. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners at some length and have also perused the available record in the light of the submissions made by him and find that no exception could be taken to the, findings recorded by the learned Service Tribunal. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners could not point out any infirmity in the impugned judgment which could have qualified the petitioners for the grant of leave under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.
3. This petition is, therefore, dismissed leave refused.