AURANGZEB vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others
This appeal challenged the dismissal of a police constable from service following his absence from duty. The appellant, having proceeded on casual leave, failed to return, citing medical grounds supported by certificates. The department initiated proceedings under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, and dismissed the appellant without conducting a regular inquiry, despite the appellant's submission of medical evidence. The Punjab Service Tribunal examined whether a major penalty could be imposed without a formal inquiry when the employee disputes the allegations or provides medical justification. The Tribunal held that the department's failure to conduct a regular inquiry violated the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, and relevant departmental instructions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the dismissal orders, ruling that the penalty was too harsh and procedurally flawed. The appellant was reinstated in service, with the period of absence treated as extraordinary leave without pay, establishing the principle that a regular inquiry cannot be dispensed with when serious allegations are contested by a civil servant.
- Can a major penalty be awarded to a police official without conducting a regular inquiry?
- Is a regular inquiry mandatory when a civil servant denies allegations of misconduct and provides medical evidence for absence?
- Does the failure to hold a regular inquiry render a dismissal order from the police department unlawful?
- Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975
' Appeal against order dated 3-7-1995 vide which the appellant was dismissed from service.
' Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant was constable in the Police Department.
He proceeded on 3 days' casual leave on 16-1-1995. He did not return for duty and sent applications for leave on medical grounds supported by medical certificates. Proceedings under Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 were initiated against him. He was given show-cause notice on 29-5-1995. His reply to the show-cause was not considered and he was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 3-7-1995. His appeal was rejected on 25-10-1995 and review petition was rejected on 5-9-1996. Hence this appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, District Attorney, Departmental Representative and have perused the record and parawise comments submitted by the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant had gone on casual leave for 3 days. He fell ill and sent leave application on medical grounds duly supported by medical certificate. The appellant did not recover from illness. He remained under treatment of other doctors and sent second application of leave on medical grounds duly supported by medical certificate of another doctor. In the show-cause notice dated 25-9-1995, it is admitted that his leave applications alongwith medical certificates were received. He further argued that the leave application on medical grounds cannot be refused. He also argued that no enquiry was conducted into the matter.
4. The respondents in their comments has submitted that the appellant remained absent for about 5 months. During the 15 years' service, he earned 13 bad entries. He is habitual absentee. During the year 1993, he was dismissed from service due to absence but was reinstated on compassionate grounds. The appellant had not improved. He is incorrectable and his conduct proved that he is not fit to be retained to disciplined force.
5. The appellant was awarded major penalty without conducting proper enquiry into the matter particularly when the appellant had submitted leave applications on medical grounds duly supported by medical certificates. In the light of rules 6 and 7 of Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 and according to the instructions issued by the Inspector-General of Police vide No, 4504- 40/MIV, dated 4-3-1984 major penalty cannot he awarded without conducting regular enquiry. It was held in 1997 PLC (C.S.) 817 that if allegations against the accused civil servant/employee are of serious nature and if he denies same, regular inquiry cannot be dispensed with. Procedure adopted in holding enquiry by department was not warranted by law.
6. The appellant was dismissed from service without holding proper enquiry on account of wilful absence of 158 days. Punishment awarded to the appellant is too harsh, I, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders dated 3-7-1995, 25-10-1995 and 5-9-1996. The appellant is reinstated in service. The intervening period shall be treated as extraordinary leave without pay.
7. There will be no order as to costs.
Cited by 3 cases
- INSPECTOR IRSHAD AHMED SOHAIL vs CAPITAL CITY POLICE OFFICER/ADDL. 2006 PLC (C.S.) 852
- SAQIB ZUBAIR LODHI vs PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED 2006 PLC 483
- Muhammad Ibrahim Abro & 3 Other vs The Inspector-General, Pakistan K.L.R. 2004 Labour & Services Cases 243