Raja JAVED AHMAD And Others vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUJRANWALA And Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeal against their dismissal from police service. The petitioners, members of the Police Reserve, were accused of participating in and leading a serious strike following grievances against a superior officer. The core legal questions involve whether the invocation of proviso (b) in Rule 9 of the Punjab Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, dispensing with a regular inquiry on the ground of the security of Pakistan, was justified, and whether the quantum of punishment of dismissal was appropriate given the findings that the superior officer was also at fault. The Supreme Court held that the questions raised required closer examination, particularly regarding the applicability of the security proviso and the appropriateness of the penalty. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these service matters.
- Whether the security of Pakistan proviso for dispensing with a regular inquiry applies to a localized police strike?
- Does a service tribunal have the duty to examine the proportionality and appropriateness of the penalty of dismissal when the superior officer is also found to be at fault?
- Rule 9(b), Punjab Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules 1975
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 19-4-1983 of the Punjab Service Tribunal; whereby petitioners' appeal against orders of dismissal from police service, was dismissed.
2. The petitioners when members of Police Reserve were accused of serious indiscipline and resort to a strike which was quelled by the superior authorities after considerable difficulty, particularly, by giving assurance to the petitioners that no punitive action will be taken against them. However, they were subsequently charge-sheeted, found guilty and were dismissed. Their plea was that Raja Javed Ahmad petitioner was abused and insulted more than once by the S.P. And that when the matter was taken to the D.I.-G. As a protest against the abuses and insult, the said superior officer did not grant interview despite the fact that he had waited for several hours for this purpose. These incidents, it was further pleaded, without any initiative on the part of the petitioners led to the other members of the force going on strike for which it was further pleaded, the petitioners were not responsible.
3. It has been found by the departmental authorities as also by the Tribunal that the petitioners were responsible for the strike.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, inter alia raised twos specific points. Firstly, that the petitioners were not afforded opportunity of a regular inquiry and hearing on the ground that proviso (b) in Rule 9 of the Punjab Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. Permitted the denial of the opportunity of hearing where the authority concerned 'is satisfied that in the interest of the security of Pakistan or any part thereof, it is not expedient to give such opportunity'. But the learned Members of the Service Tribunal failed to examine the question that the interest of security of Pakistan or any part thereof, was not involved in the present case.
5. Secondly, it is contended that according to the findings of the departmental authorities as well as by the Tribunal, the S.P. Was undoubtedly at fault and the allegations made by Raja Javed Ahmad petitioner against him were correct. That being so, even if on principle the petitioners could not be retained in police service, the question whether any penalty other than dismissal would not have been appropriate in the circumstances of this case, was not examined by the Tribunal.
6. Questions raised in this petition require examination. We accordingly grant leave to appeal. The appeal shall be prepared on the same record and shall be heard in its own turn in the category of service cases.