AMJAD ALI, ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR (RETIRED) vs SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, challenged his compulsory retirement from service, which had been upheld by departmental appellate and revisional authorities. The disciplinary action stemmed from an incident where a High Court Bailiff recovered a detainee from the petitioner's illegal confinement at a police station, leading the High Court to order the detainee's release and impose compensation on the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent penalty of compulsory retirement were legally infirm or constituted a miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner had been afforded due process, including a show-cause notice and an opportunity for a hearing, and had failed to challenge the factual findings recorded by the High Court regarding his misconduct. Consequently, the Court held that the disciplinary action was justified and free from legal error. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where departmental proceedings are conducted in accordance with due process and factual findings of misconduct are not controverted, the penalty imposed by the competent authority remains valid and immune to interference.
- Can a police officer be compulsorily retired based on findings of illegal confinement recorded by a High Court?
- Is a show-cause notice and an opportunity for a hearing sufficient to satisfy due process in disciplinary proceedings against a police officer?
- Does the failure to challenge factual findings of misconduct in departmental proceedings preclude relief in a petition for leave to appeal?
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioner serving as A.S.-I. Police was compulsorily retired from service by SSP Multan which action was confirmed in appeal and revision by DIG Police Multan and IG of Police Punjab.
2. Allegation against the petitioner was that Mr. Anwar Jamil Bailiff of the Lahore High Court recovered detenue Ghulam Sarwar from the illegal confinement of the petitioner at Police Station Jalal Pur Piranwala. Liability of the petitioner was proved to the satisfaction of a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court who besides releasing the detenue from his wrongful confinement directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs,2,000 by way of compensation.
3. Petitioner was proceeded against after issuance of a show-cause notice and providing an opportunity of hearing in which he could not controvert the accusation against him. He did not impugn the correctness of the findings of fact recorded by the High Court and was thus rightly found guilty imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service.
4. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Roshan Ara, learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondents and perusing the record as well as the impugned judgment, we do not and any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment or the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. In our view, there has been no miscarriage of justice and no substantial question of law of general public importance is involved in this petition.
5. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.