Secretary To Government Of The Punjab, Home,Department, Lahore And Another vs Muhammad Yunus Bhatti
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Service Tribunal, which set aside the compulsory retirement of the respondent, a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in setting aside the compulsory retirement order where the allegations against the respondent were vague, unspecific, and unsupported by any material on record. The Supreme Court held that no exception could be taken to the findings of the Tribunal, as the allegations of fake police encounters, release of terrorists, and accumulation of illegal property lacked any supporting material or specific details. The Court concluded that no infirmity existed in the impugned judgment to warrant the grant of leave. The key principle laid down is that administrative actions of compulsory retirement based on bald, vague, and unsubstantiated accusations cannot be sustained when unsupported by the record.
- Whether compulsory retirement based on vague and unspecific allegations can be sustained?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with findings of the Service Tribunal when no legal infirmity is pointed out under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMADY, J.-- The learned Service Tribunal held a detailed inquiry into >the reasons which had led to compulsory retirement of the respondent- DSP and having examined the entire record of the respondent's long service in the Police Departments, 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 ASC for the petition .Vat 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 ASC 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.