ALI AKBAR vs INSPECTORGENERAL OF POLICE, LAHORE and others
The petitioner, a former police official, challenged his dismissal from service following allegations of misconduct, specifically involving the extortion of illegal gratification from army personnel and a minor. After a show-cause notice and a domestic inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and dismissed. He appealed to the Service Tribunal, which upheld the dismissal, finding no procedural flaws in the inquiry. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that no regular inquiry was held and that the charges were fabricated. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and found that a fair and impartial inquiry had been conducted by the Superintendent of Police, during which independent witnesses were examined and the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself. The Court concluded that the guilt was fully established and that the petitioner was unfit for police service. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition, affirmed the findings of the Service Tribunal, and refused leave to appeal.
- Can a dismissal from service be upheld if a fair and impartial domestic inquiry has been conducted?
- Is a petitioner entitled to relief if the record demonstrates that they were afforded ample opportunity to explain the circumstances against them during an inquiry?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding disciplinary proceedings where the inquiry was conducted fairly?
ORDER
' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioner was serving in the Police Department. When he was posted in C.I.A., he was charged with misconduct as it was stated that on 13-6-1995, he alongwith Head Constable Muhammad Ilyas had intercepted two army personnel alongwith a young boy, Irfan, when they were riding on a motorcycle. It was alleged that the petitioner first took them to the police station and charged them with sodomy and subsequently he released them when they promised to pay him Rs,2,000 as illegal gratification. When the matter was reported to M.P. Unit, the petitioner was caught red-handed while accepting a brible of Rs,950. He was then handed over to the City Police Station for registration of case.
2. After a show-cause notice, domestic inquiry was conducted against the petitioner where he was found guilty of the said charges. Consequently, he was dismissed from service with immediate effective vide order, dated 6-11-1995.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner filed his appeal before the Service Tribunal, but his appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal did not find any fault with the domestic inquiry held against the petitioner.
4. Mr. Hafiz S.A. Rehman has argued that no regular inquiry was held in the case against the petitioner and the petitioner was dismissed on fabricated charges.
5. We, however, find no substance in the said contentions. Inquiry was conducted against the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, C.I.A., and evidently it was a fair and impartial inquiry.
Independent witnesses appear to have been examined by him who supported the said allegations.
The petitioner also appears to have been given ample opportunity to explain the circumstances against him. Therefore, nothing can be spelt out from the record of the case to suggest' that the petitioner had been proceeded against on fabricated charges or he had been victimized in any manner. The guilt of the petitioner appears to have been fully established at the inquiry and we are inclined to agree with the observations made by the Tribunal that the petitioner was unfit for police service under the circumstances of the case.
6. In the result, there appears to be no force in this petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave is refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- District Police Officer, Mianwali and another vs Muhammad Hanif 2020 SCMR 1610
- Judicial Members and Shaista Abbas, Accountant Member,Messrs SHELL 2016 PTD (Trib.) 722
- Messrs INNO VATIVE IMPEX, KARACHI vs COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND 2011 PTD (Trib.) 1010