INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB LAHORE and 3 others vs YAR
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The respondent, a police constable, had been dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi, for unauthorized absence from duty and involvement in criminal activities, as evidenced by multiple First Information Reports. While the departmental authorities upheld the dismissal, the Punjab Service Tribunal modified the penalty, reducing the dismissal to the stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect, despite finding no illegality or irregularity in the initial departmental proceedings. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the Service Tribunal was justified in interfering with the departmental penalty of dismissal in light of the material available on the record regarding the respondent's misconduct. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the sustainability of the Tribunal's order, specifically questioning whether the Tribunal erred in mitigating the punishment given the nature of the allegations against the respondent.
- Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal is justified in reducing a penalty of dismissal to the stoppage of increments when there is no finding of illegality in the departmental proceedings?
- Can a Service Tribunal interfere with a departmental penalty of dismissal based on unauthorized absence and criminal involvement?
ORDER
' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Respondent Constable Yar Muhammad is dismissed from service vide order dated 31-10-1988 of S.P. Headquarters, Rawalpindi. He did not meet with success in departmental appeal and revision and filed appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which is disposed of with modification that penalty of dismissal is reduced to stoppage of three increments without accumulative effect. There is finding in the impugned order that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders passed by officers of the department.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners before us that there is sufficient material on the record to justify the penalty of dismissal as respondent remained absent from duty without authorisation for long spells of time and committed crimes and was named as accused in F.I.Rs, Leave is granted to examine whether order of the Tribunal is justified and sustainable in view of material available in the record against the respondent.