DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, LAHORE RANGE, LAHORE vs Ch.
This matter arises from a petition filed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police challenging the judgment of the High Court, which had allowed a Constitution petition filed by a Sub-Inspector of Police. An inquiry for misconduct had been initiated against the respondent under the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960, resulting in an exoneration report accepted by the Superintendent of Police. However, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police disagreed, issued a show cause notice, and reduced the respondent in rank without conducting further investigation. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Inspector-General of Police could lawfully impose a penalty under Rule 16.28 of the Police Rules without conducting or directing further investigation. The Supreme Court held that Rule 16.28 empowers superior police officers to call for records and inflict or modify punishments, but explicitly requires them to make or direct further investigation before passing orders of punishment if no prior punishment was inflicted. The key principle laid down is that the exercise of revisional or supervisory penal powers under Rule 16.28 of the Police Rules necessitates conducting or directing further investigation before imposing a penalty in cases where the subordinate authority has exonerated the official.
- Can a Deputy Inspector-General of Police impose a punishment under Rule 16.28 of the Police Rules without making or directing further investigation?
- Does the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960 provide for an appeal or revision from an order of a competent authority accepting an inquiry officer's report of exoneration?
- West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960
- Rule 16.26, Police Rules
- Rule 16.28, Police Rules
- Rule 16.1, Police Rules
ORDER
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-Respondent Ch. Gulzar Ahmad was Sub-Inspector of Police at the relevant time and an inquiry for misconduct was started against him under the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called the Rules). The Inquiry Officer submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police exonerating the respondent from all the charges. The Superintendent of Police, who was the appointing and dismissing authority for the respondent, accepted the report, and ordered that the papers be filed. Subsequently, however, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police disagreed with the order of the Superintendent of Police and issued a notice to the respondent to show cause why he should not be reduced to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police on a consideration of the evidence already on record passed the impugned order holding the respondent guilty of the charges and ordering that he be reduced to the rank of the A. S. I. Police.
2. The respondent's appeal having been dismissed by the Addi--tional Inspector-General of Police, the respondent approached the High Court on a Constitution petition and the petition was allowed.
3. It has been contended before us on behalf of the petitioner, Deputy Inspector-General of Police that the Rules not having provided for a contingency of the present kind Rule 16.26 of the Police Rules apply, and the petitioner being the superior Police officer is empowered to pass the impugned order. Even if the contention be accepted, Rule 16.28 does not authorise the D. I.-G. To award a penalty without making further investigation. The Rule reads as follows:-- "16.28 (1) The Inspector-General, Additional Inspector General, a Deputy Inspector-General and a Superintendent of Police may call for and examine the records of any case and
(a) may inflict any punishment specified in sub-rule (2) of rule 16.1, in any case in which no punishment has been inflicted; and
(b) confirm, enhance, modify or annul tile punishment in any case in which any punishment specified in sub-rule (2) of rule 16.1 has been inflicted ; and make or direct to be made further investigation before passing orders."
4. It is thus evident that the D. I.-G. Could make further investigation or direct such investigation to be made before passing any order of punishment. It has been conceded on behalf of the petitioner that no such investigation had been made by the D. L-G. It is also admitted that the Rules do not provide for any appeal or revision from such order of acceptance of the report, of the Inquiry Officer by a competent authority.
5. We, accordingly, do not find any fault with the impugned order of the High Court, and dismiss the petition.