SAFDAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHIWAL and otherss
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, an ex-constable, from police service. The petitioner was dismissed following departmental proceedings under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, for allegedly selling an illicit firearm during an investigation. The core legal question was whether the departmental authorities were obligated to conduct a regular inquiry rather than relying on a show-cause notice procedure given the nature of the charges. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's dismissal was justified because he repeatedly failed to appear for personal hearings despite multiple summons, effectively avoiding the departmental process. The Court found the Tribunal's findings of fact against the petitioner to be sound and concluded that the petition did not raise any substantial question of law of public importance. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming that a delinquent employee cannot evade disciplinary proceedings by willfully absenting themselves from required personal hearings.
- Whether a regular inquiry is mandatory in departmental proceedings when the accused fails to appear for personal hearings despite multiple summons?
- Does the failure to appear for personal hearings in departmental proceedings justify dismissal without a full inquiry?
- What constitutes a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan in the context of service matters?
- Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner seeks to appeal from judgment, dated 13-6-2002, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, in Appeal No,72 of 1996.
2. The petitioner, an ex-constable, was proceeded against departmentally under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and 'Discipline) Rules, 1975. He was served with a show-cause notice dated 5-5-1992, on the allegation that during the investigation of case F.I.R. No,106 dated 12-4-1992 under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 registered at Police Station City Arifwala, District Pakpattan, it was found that an illicit .12 bore pistol was sold by him to one Rafaqat from whose possession the same was recovered. The petitioner Submitted his reply to the show-cause notice. Thereafter, he was called in the orderly room for personal hearing on 17-11-1993 but he absented himself in order to avoid his appearance. He was again summoned as many as six times but he did not appear. Therefore, the Superintendent of Police Sahiwal, by order, dated 20-11-1993 dismissed him from service w,e,f, 17-11- 1993. He filed departmental appeal, which was also dismissed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan Range, by order dated 22-2-1995. His revision petition was also turned down by the Additional Inspector-General of Police by order dated 4-1-1996. Therefore, he preferred Appeal No,72 of 1996, which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment, dated 13-6-2002, passed by the Tribunal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the light of the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notice, a regular inquiry was required to be held to prove the charges.
The nature of the charges was such which could not have been inquired into merely by issuance of show-cause notice.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have also gone through the available record. We find that the petitioner was summoned for personal hearing several times to explain his position before the competent authority but despite service of notices he avoided his appearance. Rather he absented from duty. All the departmental authorities had considered the case of the petitioner threadbare. The Tribunal also recorded findings of fact against the petitioner. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal is just and fair to which no exception can be taken. Even otherwise, this petition does not involve any substantial question of law of public importance within the meaning 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 which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.
Cited by 1 case
- TANVIR SHAUKAT vs DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, NAROWAL and 3 others 2007 PLC (C.S.) 1192