INSPECTORGENERAL OF POLICE, SIND and 3 others vs Shaikh MUSLEHUDDIN
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Service Tribunal, which modified a dismissal order against a police officer to compulsory retirement. The respondent, a police officer with 33 years of service, faced multiple disciplinary proceedings for alleged subversive activities, resulting in repeated dismissals and subsequent legal challenges. The Service Tribunal, upon reviewing the protracted history of the case and the respondent's long tenure, exercised its appellate discretion to reduce the penalty of dismissal to compulsory retirement, citing non-conformance with relevant police rules. The petitioners challenged this reduction, arguing that the gravity of the charge of subversive activity precluded such leniency. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal, as an appellate authority, possesses the competence to exhaustively examine departmental orders and grant appropriate relief, as recognized in established precedent. Finding that the Tribunal provided valid reasons for its decision and that no substantial question of law of public importance arose, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the Tribunal's authority to modify disciplinary penalties in appropriate circumstances.
- Does the Service Tribunal have the authority to modify a penalty imposed by a departmental authority?
- Can the Service Tribunal reduce a penalty of dismissal to compulsory retirement based on the length of service and procedural history?
- Is a question of law of public importance required for the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Rule 16.3(1), Police Rules 1934
- Rule 16.3(5), Police Rules 1934
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioners seek leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 31-12-1986 whereby an order of dismissal passed against the respondent was set aside and substituted by an order of his compulsory retirement.
2. ' The facts of the case disclosed that the petitioner was posted in Special/Crimes Branch (Immigration KPT) Karachi in 1974-75 and by then rendered about 25 years of service when he was proceeded against for being engaged in subversive activities. He was discharged from service by an order dated 24-4-1975 by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Special Branch Sind. On appeal the Inspector-General of Police held that the Deputy Inspector-General of Police was not the appointing authority but the appellate authority and remanded the case to the Superintendent of Police directing him to pass the proper orders but at the same time directed that no inquiry was called for. The Superintendent of Police dismissed him from service. His departmental appeal failed. His appeal to the Service Tribunal was however, allowed on 25-3-1979 on some technical and legal grounds. Another inquiry under the rules then applicable, was held while his suspension from service was continued and once more a dismissal order was passed on 12-12-1983. He again appealed to the Service Tribunal which after exhaustively dealing with all the aspects of the case reduced the penalty to compulsory retirement observing as hereunder:-- "We now concentrate on the last ground of appeal. In the first instance the appellant was discharged from service but this order was set aside in departmental appeal. On the same charge and as a consequence of the fresh proceedings he was removed. The order of removal was set aside by the Sind Service Tribunal, on technical and legal grounds. Proceedings were reinstituted against appellant on the same ground and charge and he was now dismissed. We have anxiously thought over this averment. The charge has undoubtedly remained same but punishment has increased in time. Appellant was last dismissed on 12th December, 1983 and by this time he had put in 33 (thirty-three) years of service. Keeping in view his last averment and the length of service he has put in, we do strongly feel that the punishment is not in accordance and conformance with sub-rules (1) and (5) of the Rule 16.3 of the R.P.R. Of 1979. We, therefore, partly allow the appeal and modify the impugned order of dismissal with compulsory retirement of appellant w.e.f, 12th December, 1983 with all consequential benefits."
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before us that once the charge of subversive activity was clearly brought out against the respondent who was a Police Officer, there was no occasion at all for reducing the punishment from that of dismissal to compulsory retirement. The Service Tribunal, according to the learned counsel, has not exercised the discretion in accordance with the law. In the case of M.Yamin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another (PLD 1980 SC 22) this Court has recognized the power of the Service Tribunal to exhaustively examine the departmental cyders and also to afford appropriate relief. The relief afforded by the Service Tribunal in this case is clearly, on the strength of that judgment and as an appellate authority within its competence. There are reasons given and those reasons get support ex facie from the protracted proceedings that had taken place. Besides, no question of law of public importance, as is provided in Article 212(3) of the Constitution arises in the case. Hence leave to appeal is refused.