Dig Of Police, Punjab and others vs Muhammad Irfan
This matter arises from a petition filed by the DIG of Police, Punjab and others against Muhammad Irfan, a Junior Clerk who was convicted upon a confessional statement under the Arms Ordinance. Despite his conviction and sentence, the Punjab Service Tribunal erroneously concluded that the criminal case resulted in acquittal and reinstated him or set aside his departmental implications. The core legal question was whether a police employee convicted of a criminal offence could be retained in service under the applicable service rules. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Tribunal proceeded on erroneous grounds regarding the acquittal and that under Rule 16(2) of the Police Rules, 1934, a police employee convicted of an offence is liable to dismissal and cannot be awarded a lesser punishment. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and allowed the appeal, restoring the dismissal from service.
- Whether a police employee convicted of a criminal offence can be retained in service under the Police Rules, 1934?
- Does a conviction following a confessional statement before a Judicial Magistrate attract mandatory dismissal from police service?
- Can the Punjab Service Tribunal set aside a departmental action by erroneously treating a conviction as an acquittal?
- Rule 16(2), Police Rules 1934
ORDER
GULZAR AHMED, C.J.---The Respondent, Muhammad Irfan was employed as a Junior Clerk in the office of District Police Officer, Mianwali. Two FIRs were registered against him, one being FIR No.75 of 2012 dated 25.03.2012 under sections 13/20/65, Arms Ordinance at Police Station Saddar , Mianwali. In this very case FIR, the Respondent has appeared before a Judicial Magistrate (Section 30), Mianwali on 19.03.2014, made a confessional statement and also sought pardon. The Judicial Magistrate upon such confession recorded a conviction against the Respondent under sections 13/20/65, Arms Ordinance and sentenced him to one year's S.I. However , such sentence was suspended and the Respondent was put on probation on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-.
2. The learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab contends that in the very terms of Rule 16(2) of the Police Rules, 1934 a police employee who is convicted of an offence could not be retaine d in service and his services are liable to be dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent was confronted with the above narrated position. He has nothing to say in response to the same, however prays that a lenient view may be taken against the Respondent.
4. We have noted that the Punjab Service Tribunal ("the Tribunal ") has proceeded altogether on erroneous grounds in coming to the conclusion that the criminal case against the Respondent resulted in his acquittal, whereas such is not the case on record. The Respondent himself having confessed his guilt and then having been convicted and sentenced in terms of the Rules noted above could not be awarded the punishment less than what has been provided in the Rules i.e. dism issal from service. Learned counsel for the Respondent was unable to support the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal.
5. Consequently , by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 10.05.2019, we convert this petition into an appeal and allow the same. C.M.As. are also disposed of accordingly .
Cited by 1 case
- Abid Alias Chirri vs State and another 2022 LHC 3073, 2022 MLD 1310, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 88