ATTA MUHAMMAD KHAN NIAZI vs THE DEPUTY INSPECTORGENERAL OF POLICE, SARGODHA RANGE, SARGODHA and another
The petitioner, a former Head Constable, challenged his reversion to the rank of Constable following an order by the Superintendent of Police due to unauthorized absence from duty. After exhausting departmental remedies, he appealed to the Service Tribunal, alleging that the daily diary register at the police station had been forged to falsely record his absence. The Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the absence was willful and that there was no evidence of tampering with the register. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution, contending that an inquiry report supported his defense. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings, noting that the inquiry report relied upon by the petitioner was inconclusive and contradictory. Finding that the Service Tribunal's factual determination regarding the willful absence was sound and that no substantial question of law was presented, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby upholding the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner.
- Does an inconclusive and contradictory inquiry report provide sufficient grounds to challenge a disciplinary finding of willful absence?
- Is the factual determination of a Service Tribunal regarding the integrity of official police records subject to interference by the Supreme Court when no question of law is involved?
- Can a disciplinary order of reversion be set aside on the basis of alleged forgery of departmental records if the evidence does not substantiate the claim?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-The Petitioner, formerly a Head Constable, who was reverted to the post of Constable, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution by which his appeal has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner was found absent from duty unauthorisedly. He was reverted to the substantive rank of the Constable by order of the Superintendent of Police dated 8-10-1978. After exhausting the departmental remedies, he challenged this order before the Service Tribunal. His plea was that the daily diary kept at the Police Station has been forged and reconstructed as in fact he had proceeded with permission and it was so recorded in the Diary of the Police Station. The Tribunal looked into the matter and recorded the finding in the following words:- "The absence of the appellant was entered at Serial No,25 and that there was no evidence to show that the pages in the Daily Diary Register were replaced as the binding of the same seemed to be original. So taking into consideration this report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the admission of the appellant of his arrest at Jhang on 15-7-78 we hold that the appellant had absented himself from duty wilfuly without taking permission from the competent authority and has rightly been held guilty of the charge, levelled against him. We may observe that the judgment is not of any advantage to the appellant because the order of the Superintendent of Police clearly shows that the appellant was punished and reverted to his substantive rank of Constable due to his wilful absence from duty only and the criminal case was not taken into account for any purpose at the time of imposing punishment upon him."
3. ' Ch.Mushtaq Masood, Advocate, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied heavily on the inquiry report to establish that the defence of the Petitioner was tenable and substantial and should have been taken into consideration. The portion of the Inquiry Report relied upon by the learned counsel is not helpful to his client because it concludes as follows:- "I checked up the Daily Diary of Police Post, D--Type P.S.Factory Area in which the absence of Head Constable Atta Muhammad No,1972 was entered at serial No,25. This daily diary does not contain paging. Neither it contains any certificate in the beginning about the total number of pages in this register as required per rules. However, there is no such evidence available to show that the pages were replaced in this register. The binding of the register seems to be original but at the same time the contention of the petitioner cannot be falsified. Contention of the petitioner does contain substance."
4. It is inconclusive report, contradictory in contents.
5. ' There is no question of law arising in the case and leave to appeal is, antherefore, refused.
6. ' Leave to .