DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL INVESTIGATION, LAHORE vs ASGHAR ALI

' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner Deputy Inspector-General of Police has challenged the judgment dated 16-6-2010 passed by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, vide which the respondent's appeal was allowed and the penalty of dismissal from service was set aside and the same was modified in terms as follows:-- "Hence, I accept the present appeal and modify the impugned order to the extent that the punishment of forfeiture of past service for two years is set aside and the intervening period between dismissal to reinstatement will be treated as leave of the kind due. There shall be no order as to costs."

' Learned Law Officer refers to proviso (b) (i) and (ii) to contend that where competent authority is in possession of sufficient documentary evidence, no regular inquiry was called for.

3. We have considered the submissions made and have gone through the impugned judgment.

The charge against the respondent was that he conducted a dishonest investigation as a result of which bail of the accused in case registered vide F.I.R. No,459 of 2008 under sections 420/468 and 471, P.P.C. Police Station, North Cantt. Lahore, was cancelled. Before we consider the contention of the learned Law Officer, a brief reference to the proviso he relied would be in order. Section 5 reads as follows:- "Initiation of proceedings.---(1) If on the basis of its own knowledge or information placed before it, the competent authority is of the opinion that there are sufficient grounds for initiating proceedings against an employee under this Act, it shall either--

(a) proceed itself against the accused by issuing a show-cause notice under section 7 and, for reasons to be recorded in writing, dispense with the inquiry: ' Provided that no opportunity of showing cause or personal hearing shall be given where---

(i) the competent authority is satisfied that in the interest of security of Pakistan or any part thereof, it is not expedient to give such an opportunity; or

(ii) an employee has entered into plea bargain under any law for the time being in force or has been convicted of the charge of corruption which have led to a sentence of fine or imprisonment; or

(iii) an employee is involved in subversive activities; or

(iv) it is not reasonably practicable to give such opportunity to the accused; or

(b) get an inquiry conducted into the charge or charges against the accused, by appointing an inquiry officer or an inquiry committee, as the case may be, under section 10: Provided that the competent authority shall dispense with the inquiry where--

(i) an employee has been convicted of any offence other than corruption by a Court of law under any law for the time being in force; or

(ii) an employee is or has been absent from duty without prior approval: Provided further that the competent authority may dispense with the inquiry where it is in possession of sufficient documentary evidence against the accused or for reasons to be recorded in writing, he is satisfied that there is no need to hold an inquiry." (emphasis supplied)

4. There is no cavil to the proposition that "the competent authority can dispense with the inquiry where either he is in possession of documentary evidence or for reasons to be recorded in writing he is satisfied that there is no need to hold an inquiry". The charge against the respondent was:- "that case F.I.R. No, 459 of 2008 dated 16-5-2008 under sections 420/468/471, P. P.C. South Cantt.

Lahore was entrusted to you for finalizing the same on merit in stipulated period. On 21-7-2008 you produced the case file of the above said case before the competent court and got cancelled the bail of the accused person by hiding the real facts from the court. This all act show that you, not taking interest in your official duty and also made defective investigation in the above said case for some ulterior motives which is gross misconduct/warranting disciplinary action against you under the rules."

5. The learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment found that no documentary proof existed in the file in support of the allegations levelled against the respondent which could connect him with the allegations. Learned Law Officer has not referred to any thing on record to indicate that the afore- referred finding is against the record or that there was any documentary proof with regard to the defective investigation reflecting respondent's mala fide or there was any judicial findings that real facts were withheld from the Court, which cancelled the bail to which reference has been made in the aforementioned charge.

6. In the afore-referred circumstances, the impugned judgment is unexceptionable. No question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution has been raised either. The petition lacking in merit is dismissed and .