AAMIR SIDDIQUE Versus ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE PHP, LAHORE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against an employment-related service dispute concerning the dismissal of a police official from service. The core legal question involves the validity of the departmental proceedings and the penalty of dismissal imposed on the petitioner for prolonged absence from duty. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner, a member of a disciplined force, deliberately avoided disciplinary proceedings, offered no defense for his absence, and had numerous previous bad entries on his record reflecting similar misconduct in defiance of the police code of conduct. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the impugned judgment and dismissed the petition, upholding the departmental action. The key principle laid down is that members of a disciplined force who commit prolonged unauthorized absences and exhibit a history of misconduct cannot challenge proportionate disciplinary penalties such as dismissal from service when due process has been observed.
- Whether unauthorized absence from duty by a member of a disciplined force warrants dismissal from service?
- Can a court interfere with departmental proceedings where the accused official deliberately avoids the inquiry and offers no defense?
- Whether previous bad entries on a service record can be considered in departmental disciplinary matters?
ORDER
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.-- -Our order dated 11.02.2020 is self-explanatory in reproducing the plea taken by the petitioner in person. For facility of reference it is reproduced below:-
"Ex-parte inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. His absence from duty on account of which departmental proceedings were initiated is for 11 days; but certain previous absences were taken into account to charge him with non attendance for a period of 27 days. Ultimately, he was dismissed from service for an absence period of 4 months and 21 days. The record is silent on how the calculation of his total absence from duty was made and why a period prior to the allegations in the charge sheet has been included. Issue notice."
2. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the period of absence of 04 months and 21 days includes the period of inquiry until the date of the dismissal order dated 29.12.2015, during which the petitioner remained absent from duty. However, he reiterates that in essence the case against the petitioner is absence for a period of 27 days disclosed in the charge sheet dated 27.08.2015. We have examined the inquiry report that has been placed on the record. It appears that the petitioner deliberately avoided the disciplinary proceedings and that he had offered no defence for his period of absence. There are 23 previous bad entries on his record for similar misconduct. In the circumstances, as a member of the disciplined force the petitioner clearly acted in defiance of the code of conduct governing police officers. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.
MWA/A-35/SC Petition dismisse