AFTAB ALAM vs INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE And Another
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan Service Tribunal, Quetta, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his discharge from service as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. The petitioner was found guilty of gross misconduct and corruption following a departmental enquiry and had explicitly admitted his guilt during the personal hearing granted by the competent authority before the final discharge order was passed. His departmental appeal to the Inspector-General of Police was dismissed as time-barred, and the Service Tribunal subsequently upheld the discharge. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an employee can challenge the legality of a departmental enquiry after having expressly admitted his guilt during the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that where an employee admits his guilt upon being granted an opportunity to show cause, he cannot subsequently turn around and claim that the departmental enquiry was defective. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether an employee who has admitted his guilt during a departmental enquiry can subsequently challenge the legality of the enquiry proceedings?
- Can a service tribunal dismiss an appeal on the ground of limitation when departmental remedies were pursued out of time?
- Does an admission of guilt during a personal hearing cure alleged procedural defects in a departmental enquiry?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Baluchistan Service Tribunal, Quetta dated 29-12-1986 dismissing petitioner's appeal against the order of his discharge from service as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police passed by the Director, Special Investigation Cell, Baluchistan, Quetta on 16-3-1982. This order was passed after a departmental enquiry held against the petitioner in which, according to the report of the Enquiry Officer, he was found guilty of gross misconduct, by corruption, in his capacity as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, in that, he obtained Rs.1,100 and Rs.2,000 on different occasions from certain persons by giving threats and by deceitful means. Before the final order was passed by the Director, Special Investigation Cell, petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing during which he admitted his guilt to the charges framed against him.
2. It was, therefore, on the basis of the departmental enquiry held against the petitioner in which he was found guilty, and on the basis of his own admission of guilt, that the Director Special Investigation Cell passed the order of petitioner's discharge from service dated 16-3-1982.
3. Petitioner filed a mercy petition on 20-5-1982 before the Inspector-General of Police Baluchistan in respect of his discharge from service, and also filed an appeal against the said order which was, however, dismissed by the Inspector-General of Police, Baluchistan by the order dated 7-7-1986 on the ground that the appeal was barred by time. It was in these circumstances that petitioner then filed an appeal to the Baluchistan Service Tribunal which was dismissed, as stated above.
4. Mr. Iftikhar Mohammad, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner submits that the departmental enquiry was not held in accordance with the rules, and, therefore, the order of petitioner's discharge from service has no legal foundation. This plea was raised before the Service Tribunal but it was rejected in these words: "It may be pertinent to observe that such objection was neither raised in the Memo of the Mercy petition not in appeal before the Inspector-General Police, hence this ground at this belated stage is of no avail to the appellant."
5. The Service Tribunal then finally dismissed the appeal in these words "The mercy petition and appeal being time-barred, we, therefore see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.
6. The plea that the departmental enquiry was defective in terms of the rules is hardly available to the petitioner, for, he had, on being granted second opportunity to show cause against the report of the Enquiry Officer, who had found him guilty, admitted his guilt before the Director, Special Investigation Cell who had passed the order of his discharge. In view of petitioner's own admission of guilt to the charges levelled against him, it hardly lies in his mouth to plead that the departmental enquiry held against him in respect of the charges was defective.
7. The plea raised in support of the petition, therefore, has no merit, and petition is accordingly dismissed.