2019 PLC(CS)N 50

GHULAM MURTAZA WATTO Versus S.P. INVESTIGATION

Citation2019 PLC(CS)N 50

CourtLahore High Court

Judge(s)Muhammad Farrukh Irfan Khan

ORDER

MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---- Through this Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner calls in question the validity of impugned order dated 23.11.2011 whereby respondent placed the petitioner under suspension.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of respondent is illegal and without lawful authority; that the respondent was not appointing authority of the petitioner and under the PEEDA Act, 2006 is not competent to pass the impugned order; that under the law CCPO/Additional Inspector General of Police is competent authority to pass such any order against the petitioner. Relies on Azizullah Memon v. Province of Sindh and another (2007 SCMR 229).

3. Conversely, learned Law Officer submits that the respondent has not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned order; that the respondent received a complaint that the petitioner offered bribe to the Incharge Investigation to release an accused and in case of non-fulfillment of his demand threatened him with dire consequences; that under Rule 16.17 of the Police Rules, 1934 the respondent was fully competent to place the petitioner under suspension; that through the impugned order no disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner rather he was placed under suspension and inquiry was ordered to be initiated.

4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed by an authority which was not competent to pass such an order. This contention of the learned counsel is mis-conceived. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the respondent has not initiated any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. He has merely on receipt of complaint against him, suspended him and appointed an inquiry officer to probe into the matter. According to Rule No.16.17 of the Police Rules, 1934 any police officer above the rank of head constable may suspend, pending inquiry or investigation, any enrolled police officer junior to him in rank, who is guilty or is reasonably suspected of mis-conduct. Admittedly, the petitioner is junior to the respondent as such while passing the impugned order the respondent has not exceeded its jurisdiction. Facts of the instant case are distinct to the case referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner as in that case disciplinary proceedings were initiated by an authority not vested with the said jurisdiction, whereas, in the present case respondent has merely suspended the petitioner and appointed an inquiry officer to probe into the matter. No disciplinary action was taken by the respondent against the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Resultantly, this petition has no force and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

ZC/G-2/L Petition dismissed.