YAQOOB ALI Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MIANWALI

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J .‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in a service matter from judgment dated 14‑6‑1981 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, whereby petitioner's appeal against dismissal from police service as A . S.I. was rejected.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 20‑11‑1978 one Mulazim Hussain was assaulted by Bashir etc. His uncle took him to the hospital, got him medically examined and then reported the matter at Police Station, Bhakhar. The Moharrir Head Constable produced the complainant party along with the medico‑legal report before the appellant who was then acting S.H.O. there; but allegedly the appellant did not register the case, assuring the complainant at the same time that would take proper action in the morning. It seems that no action was taken. Mulazim Hussain died on 30‑11‑1978. It is said that in order to cover up his dereliction of duty the appellant made false entries in the daily diary to show himself away from the Police Station on Nakabandi duty from 18‑11‑1978 to 22‑11‑1978. The result was that not only was registration of the case delayed by 10 days but the prosecution was also deprived of important evidence such as the dying declaration of Mulazim Hussain. A preliminary enquiry was con ducted by Mr. Tariq Saleem Lone, S.D.P.O., Bhakhar, who held the appellant guilty and so the appellant was suspended from service. After being suspended the appellant proceeded on medical leave. He was due back on 13‑12‑1978 but did not report back. As his where abouts were not known to his office, a show‑cause notice in respect of the matter under dispute could not be served on him; and, taking ex parte proceedings, the S.P. Mianwali, dismissed him from service.

3. The Tribunal considered all the points urged before it and dismissed petitioner's appeal.

4. Learned counsel reiterated the points examined by the Tribunal. They are essentially of fact. No point of law of public importance involved. The so‑called legal argument that, the preliminary enquiry should not have been held as there is no provision of law for holding, such an enquiry is also without substance. The said enquiry was for the benefit of the petitioner and is not prohibited by any law.

5. This petition has no force and is accordingly, dismissed.

6. M . I . / Y‑13 / S Petition dismissed.