SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUJRAT And Another vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Superintendent of Police, Gujrat, and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gujranwala, challenging a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The Tribunal had accepted the respondent's appeal, ordering his reinstatement as an officiating Sub-Inspector following his earlier reversion. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the disciplinary action taken against the respondent, based on allegations of registering a false First Information Report (F.I.R.) of a cognizable offence, was justified. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the F.I.R. in question was registered by another officer, the investigation was conducted by a different officer, and the challan had merely been submitted by the respondent for approval through official channels. The Court held that the allegations against the respondent lacked substance and that the Tribunal's judgment, both on factual and legal grounds, was sound. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that disciplinary action cannot be sustained where the factual basis for the alleged misconduct is demonstrably absent or misattributed to the employee.
- Can disciplinary action for registering a false First Information Report be sustained against a police officer who did not register the report or conduct the investigation?
- Is a Service Tribunal's finding on factual aspects of a disciplinary matter open to interference by the Supreme Court if the findings are legally sound?
ORDER
1. GHULAM MUJADDID, J: --The Superintendent of Police, Gujrat, and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gujranwala, have filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 12-6-1985. The Tribunal by means of the impugned judgment accepted the appeal of the respondent and ordered his reinstatement as officiating Sub-Inspector with effect from the date when he was reverted. The question of back benefits was left to be determined by the competent authority.
2. On 3-8-1951 the ,respondent joined the force as Foot Constable. He was promoted as Head Constable in 1962 and as A.S.I. In 1972. He was appointed as officiating Sub-Inspector in 1979 and was posted as S.H.O. Kathiala Sheikhan.
3. Action was taken against the respondent on the ground that he registered a false First Information Report of a cognizable offence which resulted in harassment to the accused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same contentions which were raised before the Tribunal and were repelled. The F.I.R. Was registered by A.S.I. Bootey Khan. Investigation was conducted by A.S.I. Nazir Ahmad. The challan was submitted by the respondent for approval to the A.S.P. It reached the Prosecuting Inspector who forwarded the same to the Court concerned. The challan was still pending in the Court when the Tribunal decided the appeal. It is, therefore, obvious that there is no substance in the allegations levelled against the respondent.
5. The judgment of the Tribunal both on legal and factual aspects is not open to any exception.
6. Dismissed.