MUHAMMAD FAROOQ ANJUM vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and others
The petitioner, a former Police Constable, sought leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed his service appeal upholding his dismissal from service. The petitioner was proceeded against for unauthorized absence from duty, suspicious movement, and complaints of committing an unnatural offence. A show-cause notice was issued, following which the Superintendent of Police dismissed him, and his departmental appeals and subsequent service tribunal appeal were rejected. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was denied due process through lack of service of notice and whether his dismissal was legally justified. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner took contradictory stances regarding the service of the notice and failed to substantiate his claims, thereby justifying his dismissal. The court established that contradictory pleas by a litigant regarding service of notice disentitle them to relief, and unauthorized absence coupled with failure to respond to a show-cause notice warrants dismissal from disciplined service.
- Whether contradictory stances taken by a petitioner regarding the service of a show-cause notice disentitle him to relief?
- Does unauthorized absence from duty without prior sanction justify dismissal from police service?
- Can a petitioner challenge a departmental dismissal when he fails to reply to the show-cause notice?
ORDER
' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 28-12- 1992 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, whereby his appeal against the orders of respondents was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was a Police Constable and at the relevant time was posted at Police Station, Toba Tek Singh. He was proceeded against, for absence from duty without leave, wandering in Kamalia city in suspicious manner and complaints were received against him for committing unnatural offence.
3. A show-cause notice was issued to him on 9-1-1990, to which he did not reply. After hearing him the Superintendent Police, Toba Tek Singh, on 29-1-1990-, dismissed him from service. He filed an appeal against the aforesaid order, but the same was rejected on 9-6-1990 by the D.I.-G. Of Police, Faisalabad. Thereafter, he preferred a revision petition which also failed on 3-3-1991, before the respondent No,3.
4. Aggrieved by the aforementioned orders the petitioner filed appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which was also dismissed on 28-12-1992.
Hence this petition for leave to appeal against the impugned orders.
5. The petitioner has appeared in person. The first contention raised by him was that no notice was served upon him before order for his dismissal was passed by the S.P., Toba Tek Singh. It was next argued that there is nothing on the record to substantiate the allegations against him and he was dismissed from service without any legal justification.
6. The perusal of this petition, as well as that filed by him, before the Punjab Service Tribunal, clearly specifies in paragraph 2 thereof, that show-cause notice dated 9-1-1990, was served upon him but in paragraph 3, it is mentioned that the show-cause notice was not served upon him as he was at the relevant time in jail.
7. Before us, the petitioner further changed his stance. He stated that in fact, the show-cause notice was served upon him on the day, he appeared before the S.P., Toba Tek Singh for hearing. Irk view of the contradictory pleas taken and improvement made by the petitioner in his stance no reliance can be placed on his testimony. We agree with the learned Service Tribunal that show-cause notice was served on him and he opted not to furnish reply thereto.
' As regards the next contention, we are of the opinion, that the petitioner was aware of the allegations contained in the show-cause notice and he did not controvert the same. The petitioner of his own showing, did not obtain prior sanction, when he proceeded to avail, leave on medical ground. It seems that after he absented himself from duty he obtained a medical certificate from a doctor to justify his absence.
8. In our view, the petitioner has failed to make out a case warranting interference in the impugned orders.
' In the result this petition fails and is dismissed. Leave is, therefore refused.