THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERL OF POLICE, PUNJAB LAHORE vs MUHAMMAD
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside the departmental dismissal of the respondent traffic constable for corruption. The core legal question was whether a regular inquiry through an Inquiry Officer under rule 6(4) of the Punjab Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules is mandatory in every case involving a charge of corruption, precluding the summary procedure under rule 6(3). The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the Tribunal's decision raises a question of public importance as it would render rule 6(3) redundant in all corruption cases. Consequently, the Court suspended the impugned order of the Service Tribunal and directed an early hearing. The key principle laid down is that summary inquiry procedures under disciplinary rules should not be automatically barred in corruption cases solely on the nature of the charge without considering the scope of applicable statutory rules.
- Whether a regular inquiry is mandatory under rule 6(4) of the Punjab Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules whenever a charge of corruption is made?
- Can the summary procedure prescribed in rule 6(3) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules be adopted in cases involving allegations of corruption?
- Does an interpretation rendering a disciplinary rule redundant raise a question of law of public importance warranting leave to appeal?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-The petitioners seek' leave to appeal. Under Article 212 (3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 26th October, 1981 whereby the departmental punishment of dismissal passed on 1st March, 1980 against the respon--dent was set aside.
2. There was an allegation against the respondent of having received illegal gratification on the. 5th of January, 1980 at about 3 p. m. While he was performing duties of a traffic constable. He was given a show-cause notice to which he submitted a reply. The Superintendent of Police who was the competent authority proceeded against him under rule 6, sub-rule (3) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules and after examining the allegations in the light of the reply submitted by the respondent held him guilty and punished him. His departmental appeal also failed. The respondent then appealed to the Tribunal and succeeded.
3. The Tribunal has held on a question of law that whenever a charge of corruption is made regular inquiry is must by appointing an Inquiry Officer under rule 6 (4) of the Punjab Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The shorter summary procedure prescribed in rule 6 (3) cannot be adopted for concluding such an inquiry.
4. We consider that the question of law decided by the Tribunal and the decision do raise a question of law of public importance, for if it is given full effect, rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules would become redundant and inapplicable in all cases of corruption. Leave to appeal is therefore granted. The impugned order of the Service Tribunal is suspended meanwhile and early hearing of the matter is directed on the present record with liberty to the parties to file such additional documents as are considered necessary.