AMJAD ALI, ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR (RETD.) vs SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the compulsory retirement of the petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, following disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Multan. The disciplinary action was predicated on findings by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, who had previously recovered a detenu from the petitioner's illegal confinement and ordered the petitioner to pay compensation. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in the petitioner's compulsory retirement, were legally infirm or constituted a miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had been afforded due process, including the issuance of a show-cause notice and an opportunity for a hearing, which he failed to utilize effectively to controvert the accusations. Furthermore, the petitioner did not challenge the factual findings recorded by the High Court regarding the illegal confinement. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no legal infirmity in the disciplinary proceedings or the impugned judgment, determining that no substantial question of law of general public importance was involved. The petition was dismissed accordingly.
- Can disciplinary action be initiated against a police officer based on findings of illegal confinement made by a High Court Judge?
- Does the failure to challenge factual findings of a High Court regarding illegal confinement preclude a challenge to subsequent disciplinary action?
- Is compulsory retirement a valid penalty for a police officer found guilty of illegal confinement after a show-cause notice and hearing?
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioner serving as A.S.-I. Police was compulsorily retired from service by S.S.P., Multan which action was confirmed in appeal and revision by D.I.-G. Police, Multan and I.- G. Of Police, Punjab.
2. Allegation against the petitioner was that Mr. Anwar Jamil Bailiff of the Lahore High Court recovered detenu 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 detenu 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 find 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.
4. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.