SANA ULLAH vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, a police official, from service by the CCPO, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary dismissal was justified given the admitted facts of the petitioner's conduct. The petitioner had stopped three individuals late at night without any reasonable suspicion or allegation of a cognizable offense and detained them at a police station. The Supreme Court held that these admitted actions constituted a serious abuse of authority, implying an intent to extract an undue advantage. The Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on precedent involving different factual circumstances, noting that where the underlying misconduct is admitted, further inquiry is unnecessary. The Court affirmed the dismissal, establishing the principle that the abuse of authority by law enforcement officials to interfere with the lives of ordinary citizens without legal basis warrants severe disciplinary action, including dismissal from service, and does not necessitate further evidentiary inquiry when the material facts are undisputed.
- Does the detention of citizens by a police official without allegation of a cognizable offense constitute an abuse of authority justifying dismissal?
- Is further departmental inquiry necessary when the material facts constituting misconduct are admitted by the delinquent official?
- Can a disciplinary dismissal be upheld where the official's conduct demonstrates an intent to extract an undue advantage from citizens?
ORDER
1. UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---This petition assails the judgment of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal dated 5.6.2017 which affirms the order of dismissal from service of the petitioner passed by the CCPO, Lahore on 19.3.2015. The said order was passed after the departmental inquiry was held by the SSP Operations, Lahore.
2. Some aspects of the complaint against the petitioner may have been disputed by the latter but two facts are admitted and in fact to that extent no dispute has been raised by the petitioner even now: firstly , that the petitioner stopped the two men and a woman travelling on the road late at night. The petitioner could not give any explanation or reason except what is now stated to be his suspicion about those persons; secondly , the petitioner took them to the police station. It is clear that there is no allegation or disclosure of the commission of a cognizance offence committed by the said persons. Leaving aside the disputed allegations of bribery the said admitted facts reflect the mindset of the petitioner and constitute a serious abuse of authority . For such abuse of authority to interfere with the lives of the ordinary citizen, one can infer that the purpose was to extract some advantage, whether pecuniary or otherwise. In the circumstance, therefore, the punishment inflicted on the petitioner is justified. Learned A counsel has relied on the case of Khalid Mansoor v. Director , FIA, Rawalp indi 2008 SCMR 1174, wherein the facts are completely different because the FIA Officer was under the duty to check passports which he omitted to do in one instance and disciplinary proceedings against him relaxed. In the present case there are two salient facts noted by us above, which are undisputed; consequently , neither further inquiry was necessary nor there was any limitation on the competent authority to pass the impugned order of dismissal against the petitioner .
3. Petition is dismissed and leave to appeal declined.