DEPUTY INSPECTORGENERAL OF POLICE vs SHAFIQUEURREHMAN and others

ORDER

1. ' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---The respondent, Shafique-ur-Rehman was served with a show-cause notice, on 11-11-1992 by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan with the following allegations:- ' You Inspector Shafique-ur-Rehman No,F-117 while serving in Toba Tek Singh District were convicted by District and Sessions Judge, Jhang to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment in Private Complaint No,3/2, dated 31-1-1990, Trial No,35 of 1990 under sections 452/354- A/325/148/149, P.P.C.

2. ' The Criminal Appeal No,443 of 1990 filed by you has also been dismissed by Mr. Justice Sheikh Muhammad Zubair, Judge, Lahore High Court. Lahore vide his judgment, dated 18-5-1992.

3. ' By reasons of the above grounds you appear to have been guilty of misconduct inefficiency and as such are liable to disciplinary action under Rule 10(a) and (b) of (W&D) Rules, 1975 and Police Rule 16.2(2) which may indicate imposition of major penalty as prescribed in such Rules.

4. ' The circumstances of the case do not warrant the initiation of departmental proceedings through an enquiry officer. Therefore, it has been decided to take disciplinary action against you by issuing show-cause notice as contemplated in such Rules.

5. ' The reply to the show-cause notice was given by the respondent. On 25-1-1993 he was dismissed from service w,e,f, 18-7-1990 the date of his conviction. His departmental appeal was rejected on 2- 12-1994; he went in appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal which was heard and accepted vide its impugned decision, dated 9-12-1997. The Tribunal mainly gave the relief to the respondent on the ground that it was a case of discrimination pure and simple. It is advantageous to quote the relevant petition of the impugned decision which is as follows:-- "This position also gains strength from the fact that the department itself has been awarding the punishment other than dismissal in cases where, the civil servants were convicted by a Court of law and some were even retained in service. In this connection copies of order, dated 12-12-1984 and 30-1-1985 issued by Inspector-General of Police were produced which show that Mr. Shafaqat Ali Chattha, Inspector was convicted by the Court of law and retained in service and the intervening period was treated as leave of the kind due. Further, Mr. Anwar Khan, Deputy Superintendent of Police was also convicted by the Court of law and was then reinstated in service vide order, dated 18-8-1996 issued by Inspector-General of Police. Inspector Legal Mr. Saeed Ahmed Khan pointed out that these cases are different from the case of the appellant in a such as in these s were passed for remission by the higher authorities. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that this distinction does not make any difference for the reason that the case of the appellant was never put up for remission and that the act of remission does not result in the setting aside of the order of conviction itself. This aspect actually adds another dimension to the case of the appellant inasmuch as he has been discriminated against for not being considered likewise. Be that as it may, these precedents show that the claim of the respondents that they have no option except to dismiss the appellant stands negated. While passing the impugned order, dated 25-1-1993, respondent No,1 did not take into consideration the options available to him other than dismissing the appellant, with the result that the appellants' case for a lenient view keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the precedents did not receive proper consideration under the Rules. Respondents No,2 also failed to take into consideration these factors.

6. ' In the light of the foregoing, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order, dated 25-1-1993, 12-2-1994 are set aside, the appellant is reinstated in service and the intervening period is treated as leave of the kind due. The case of the appellant may however be reconsidered in the light of the observations made above."

7. ' This is a petition for leave to appeal against the impugned judgment.

2. Learned counsel has argued that there is nothing on record to show that the respondent has been discriminated.

3. There is not force in the argument, inasmuch as, concrete example of Shafqat Ali Chattha, Inspector has been given who was also similarly placed and was given the relief of reinstatement.

8. Even otherwise no question of law of public