WARIS KHAN vs THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, N.-W.F.P., PESHAWAR
The petitioner, an Inspector of Police, sought leave to appeal against the order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal dismissing his service appeal against his compulsory retirement from service. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally for making a false statement before a Speedy Trial Court, thereby defaming a Senior Police Officer, and was found guilty of negligence and inefficiency. Following the dismissal of his departmental appeal by the Inspector-General of Police and subsequent dismissal of his service appeal by the Tribunal, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, contending that evidence had been misread and that the penalty imposed was excessive. The core legal question concerned the re-appraisal of evidence and the proportionality of the penalty of compulsory retirement in the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to re-appraise the evidence on record and to consider whether the penalty imposed was justifiable in law, laying down the principle regarding the review of departmental penalties and factual findings by service tribunals.
- Whether the service tribunal misread the evidence on record while upholding the penalty of compulsory retirement?
- Is the penalty of compulsory retirement disproportionate or excessive for making a false statement before a court resulting in defamation of a senior officer?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted to re-appraise evidence in service matters?
ORDER
' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against order dated 31-8-1994 of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, whereby his Service Appeal No,367 of 1993 was dismissed.
2. The petitioner while serving as Inspector of Police (CIA) was proceeded against for making false statement before the Speedy Trial Court in a case F.I.R. No,281 dated 4/5-5-1991 registered at Police Station, University Town, Peshawar and thereby defaming a Senior Police Officer of the rank of Deputy Inspector-General of Police.
3. As a result of the inquiry he was found guilty of negligence/inefficiency and compulsorily retired from service with effect from 10-8-1993 by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police. He preferred an appeal before the Inspector-General of Police, Peshawar, but the same was dismissed on 28-11- 1993.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the Departmental Authorities he filed appeal before N.- W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, which was dismissed vide impugned order, referred to above.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the evidence on the record had been misread. He relied on A.U. Musarrat v. Government of West Pakistan (PLD 1977 SC 24) to contend that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was far excessive.
6. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner leave to appeal is granted to re-appraise evidence on the record and to consider whether the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was justifiable in law.,