GHULAM MUSTAFA Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE
This matter concerns three petitions for leave to appeal filed by former police constables challenging an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld their removal from service following a departmental inquiry. The petitioners were found guilty of corruption and misconduct under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, after they allegedly assaulted citizens and demanded illegal gratification during an investigation. The core legal question was whether the departmental proceedings and the subsequent removal from service were legally justified and factually supported. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the procedural history, noting that the petitioners had been served with charge-sheets, provided with a summary of allegations, and granted full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present a defense during the inquiry. Finding that the Inquiry Officer had properly evaluated the evidence and concluded the petitioners' explanations were unsatisfactory, the Court held that no grounds existed for judicial interference with the findings of the Service Tribunal. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the petitions, reinforcing the principle that departmental findings supported by due process and evidence are generally not subject to appellate interference.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with findings of a Service Tribunal where the departmental inquiry followed due process?
- Is a departmental inquiry report based on evidence and opportunity for defense sufficient to uphold the removal of a police officer?
- Rule 3(b)(c), Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J. ‑‑These three petitions for leave to appeal (Nos.828, 829 and 830 of 1984) have been filed by Ghulam Mustafa, Muhammad Amir and Nazir Hussain against the same order of the Punjab Service Tribunal Lahore. Since these petitions are connected, these are being taken up and disposed of together.
2. The three petitioners are ex‑constables of the Police. A departmental inquiry was held against them and they were removed from service after having been held guilty of corruption and misconduct as contemplated by rule 3(b)(c) of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975. The brief facts are that some altercation took place between two persons namely Muhammad Aslam and Abdul Jabbar. The matter was brought to notice of the local police and the petitioners went to the chak for investigating the matter. They wanted to bring Muhammad Aslam and his father to the police station on the pretext of their quarrel with Abdul Jabbar. On their refusal to accompany the petitioners, they were not only beaten up by the petitioners but the petitioners also demanded Rs.l ,000 as illegal gratification. Eventually they received Rs.600 as illegal gratification. Muhammad Aslam then filed an application before Circle Officer Anti‑Corruption Establishment Multan who held a preliminary inquiry and thereafter effected a compromise between the petitioners and Muhammad Aslam etc. by restoring the bribe money to Muhammad Aslam. Thereafter, the matter was put up before the Anti‑Corruption Committee No.3 which decided to take departmental action against them. The petitioners were served with charge‑sheets as well as summary of allegations against them. They submitted their written explanations. The evidence of the complainant side alongwith witnesses was recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the petitioners were given full opportunity to cross‑examine as well as to present their case in defence. The Inquiry Officer in his report arrived at the conclusion that their explanations were unsatisfactory.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue before us that the impugned orders passed as against the petitioners were against facts as well as law applicable to the present case, that the allegations of misconduct and taking bribe had not been proved etc. We have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel and in our view no case has been made out for interference. The petitions are therefore dismissed.
4. M.I./G‑74/S Petitions dismissed.