SADIQ HUSSAIN vs SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAWALPINDI and another
The petitioner, an officiating Sub-Inspector of Police, challenged his reduction in rank to foot constable following disciplinary proceedings initiated after he failed to conduct an inquest or arrange a post-mortem examination regarding an unnatural death. A preliminary inquiry by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer found the petitioner negligent in his duties, leading to charges of gross misconduct, inefficiency, and burking. After departmental appeals to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police and the Service Tribunal were unsuccessful, the petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings suffered from any legal infirmity or denial of due process. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had been provided sufficient opportunity to defend his position before the Superintendent of Police. The Court found no question of law of public importance and concluded that the departmental proceedings were conducted without legal infirmity, thereby affirming the penalty imposed.
- Does the failure of a police officer to conduct an inquest or arrange a post-mortem for an unnatural death constitute grounds for disciplinary action?
- Can a disciplinary penalty of reduction in rank be upheld if the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to clear their position?
- Does a departmental inquiry into police misconduct necessarily raise a question of law of public importance for the Supreme Court?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-The petitioner was an officiating Sub-Inspector of Police. On 9-1-1985, one Nazir Ahmad died of un-natural cause. This incident was reported to the petitioner by the son of the deceased. The petitioner visited the spot but took no further action either by holding an inquest or arranging for the post-mortem examination of the deceased. Subsequently, in respect of the death of the deceased a case under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code was registerd. A preliminary inquiry into the incident was held by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Murree. The said officer took the view that the petitioner had failed to perform his duty. The petitioner was reduced to his substantive rank of head constable and served with a show-cause notice why he should not be punished for gross misconduct, inefficiency, negligence of duty and burking. He was heard by the Superintendent of Police who by way of penalty reduced him in rank to foot constable. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal but it was rejected by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police. He then preferred an appeal before the Service Tribunal but without any succcess. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and do not find that any question of law of public importance for our consideration arises in this case. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity by the Superintendent of Police to clear his position but he was unable to do so. The proceedings taken by the department before imposing the penalty of reduction in rank do not suffer from any legal infirmity. The petition is dismissed.