RASHID AHMAD TAHIR vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld the disciplinary punishment of reduction in pay by three stages imposed upon the petitioner, a police officer. The petitioner had been penalized following regular police proceedings under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, after tainted money was recovered from his possession. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and whether the petitioner was condemned unheard. The Supreme Court observed that while the petitioner was not found to have demanded the money as illegal gratification, his possession of such funds was inconsistent with the standards expected of a member of a disciplined force. The Court held that the disciplinary authorities and the Tribunal had acted within their jurisdiction and that the petitioner had been afforded due process. Consequently, the Court found no violation of rules or principles of natural justice and dismissed the petition, noting that the punishment was relatively lenient given the circumstances.
- Does the possession of tainted money by a police officer justify disciplinary action under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975?
- Can a service tribunal's decision upholding a disciplinary penalty be challenged if the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law?
- Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, .J----The petitioner got a very minor dose of punishment. The Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, awarded him punishment of reduction in pay by three stages by way of regular police proceedings as provided under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The period of suspension was to be treated as such. The aforesaid order was upheld in departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police and was confirmed by the Punjab Service Tribunal where the petitioner appealed after having exhausted departmental remedies and his appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 12-104985 by the Punjab Service Tribunal.
2. ' No doubt, according to the order of the Superintendent of Police, the tainted money of Rs,1,000 was not demanded by the petitioner as illegal gratification but the same was recovered from his possession. The petitioner being a member of the disciplined force, was not expected to pocket the same. He started his career on the corrupt foundation. May be that his superior officers as well as the Tribunal wanted to give him one more chance to improve himself to be an officer worthy of the force. The petitioner should be grateful for that otherwise we do not think that there was violation of any rule or that the petitioner was condemned unheard or that his case was not considered in accordance with law. Not a fit case for leave. Dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 1 case
- Dr. MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus Dr. RIFFAT AYSHA ANIS 2007 SCMR 1748