RIAZ AKHTAR vs DEPUTY INSPECTORGENERAL OF POLICE and others
The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, challenged his removal from service following an incident where he was caught accepting illegal gratification by a raiding Magistrate. Upon being confronted, the petitioner allegedly maltreated the Magistrate and absconded, later being charged with misconduct. A show-cause notice was issued, and after a hearing, the Superintendent of Police removed him from service, citing misconduct, maltreatment of the Magistrate, and unauthorized absence from duty. The petitioner's appeals to the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Provincial Service Tribunal were dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the allegation of maltreatment required a formal inquiry rather than a summary procedure and that his absence from duty was not part of the original show-cause notice. The Supreme Court held that the decision to dispense with a formal inquiry was a matter of administrative discretion. Furthermore, the Court found no grounds for interference, noting the petitioner's admitted unauthorized absence. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that departmental authorities possess discretion regarding the necessity of formal inquiries in disciplinary proceedings.
- Is it mandatory to hold a formal inquiry into allegations of misconduct in police disciplinary proceedings, or can the authority exercise discretion to dispense with it?
- Can an authority consider grounds for removal from service that were not explicitly included in the initial show-cause notice?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the administrative discretion of departmental authorities regarding the necessity of a formal inquiry?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and was posted in C.IA., Bahawalpur. On 16-11-1981, a raiding party headed by a Magistrate surprised him while accepting Rs,500 by way of illegal gratification from one Ghulam Muhammad. As soon as the Magistrate disclosed to him his identity, the petitioner pushed him and ran away. He then entered the English office of the Deputy Commissioner and placed the money which he received from Ghulam Muhammad in the pocket of a constable. He then disappeared. A criminal case for accepting illegal gratification was registered against him with the Anti-corruption Establishment. He has since been challaned in this case.
2. Soon after the aforementioned incident the petitioner was placed under suspension and a show- cause notice was drafted for service upon him. The petitioner could not be traced out with the result that notice could not be served upon him. He was arrested on 3-2-1982 and was bailed out on 22-2-1982. It was thereafter that he received the show-cause notice and submitted a reply thereto. He was heard by the Superintendent of Police, Bahawalpur who by an order, dated 2-5- 1982 removed him from service. The relevant portion of the order made in this regard reads as follows:- "Having considered the pros and cons of the case I am clear in my mind that the accused AS.I did commit the misconduct by maltreating the raiding Magistrate thereby acting in a manner prejudicial to good order and discipline in the Police Force. Besides, his consistent and persistent behaviour of breach of discipline in absenting himself without leave or permission and making attempts to hamper with the lawful departmental proceedings, warrant his removal from service on these counts only."
3. From the order of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police. It was dismissed. He then preferred an appeal before the Provincial Service Tribunal but that too met with no success. He now seeks leave to 'appeal from this Court.
4. In support of this petition, two contentions have been raised. It is contended that the question whether the petitioner had maltreated the raiding Magistrate was one of fact which required an inquiry and the Superintendent of Police should not have dispensed with the requirement of an inquiry before holding the petitioner guilty. The second contention is that absence from duty was not a charge included in the show-cause notice and therefore this allegation should not have been taken into consideration by the Superintendent of Police.
5. After going through the order of the learned Tribunal and hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are not satisfied that this is a fit case where leave to appeal should be granted. It was a matter of discretion with the Superintendent of Police whether the allegation of maltreatment of the Magistrate required a detailed inquiry or not. As regards his absence form duty, it is admitted that soon after the raid he left Bahawalpur for Lahore without permission and was for about 3 months untraceable. Even though his case was that he was getting treatments at Lahore in a police hospital, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore, could not discover his whereabout.
This is not a fit case for interference. The petition is dismissed.