ABDUL QAYYUM ABBASI vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a service matter concerning the dismissal of a police official from service. The petitioner challenged the orders of the departmental authorities and the subsequent dismissal of his appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to defend himself during the departmental inquiry proceedings and whether the principle of consistency required his reinstatement based on the reinstatement of another constable involved in the same incident. The Supreme Court held that the record clearly demonstrated the petitioner was afforded full opportunity to participate in the inquiry but chose not to do so. Regarding the comparison with another constable, the Court held that it could not adjudicate on the basis of another case without knowing the specific material and circumstances of that reinstatement. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal, thereby dismissing the petition and declining leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.
- Can a petitioner claim reinstatement based on the reinstatement of another employee without establishing the similarity of evidence and circumstances?
- Does a failure to participate in departmental inquiry proceedings despite being afforded opportunity preclude a claim of denial of fair hearing?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 18th February, 1999 whereby Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner, calling in question the orders dated 14th May, 1996, 6th January 1997 and 7th July, 1997 passed by Superintendent of Police. C.I.A., Multan, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan Range, Multan and Inspector General of Police Punjab, Lahore, respectively.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that petitioner was proceeded against departmentally in pursuance of charge-sheet dated 19th March, 1996 based on a report submitted by Inspector Saif All of C.I.A., Multan vide Letter No,3/PA dated 17th March, 1996. Relevant para therefrom is reproduced herein below:-- "As per report dated 17-3-1996, submitted by the Inspector Saif Ali of C.I.A., Multan (Now dismissed) on the application of Fazal Maseeh that on 18-2-1996 I alongwith H.C. Sajjad Ahmad No,2288 was found bargaining with the relatives of the accused Sajjad George. According to Inspector Saif Ali, he reached at the spot and found you present there alongwith the abovesaid officials and the accused alongwith 6 bottles of liquor. The Inspector directed you to take the accused person to C.I.A. Staff and initiate legal proceedings against the accused but you neither took the accused to C.I.A. Staff_ nor initiated any legal action against him. The next" day, you met with the Inspector and disclosed that the accused had slipped away. From his custody."
3. Accordingly, inquiry was conducted against the petitioner by an Inquiry Officer during course whereof sufficient opportunity was afforded to petitioner to participate in the inquiry proceedings but for one or the other reason, he absented himself. In this behalf, Chairman, Federal Service Tribunal in the impugned judgment has mentioned the events and the progress of the inquiry and concluded that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity of hearing but he did not participate in the proceedings. On receipt of the inquiry report petitioner was dismissed from service by Superintendent of Police, C.I.A., Multan vide order dated 14th May, 1996 Appeal tiled by him before Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan against the order of dismissal was also dismissed on 6th January, 1997. Similarly, he filed a Revision before Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore but without success.
' Feeling dissatisfied from the above-noted orders, petitioner approached the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore by way of filing appeal but the same was also dismissed by means of impugned order. As such instant petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel contended that petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing to resist the charge framed by the Inquiry Officer. He further informed that on the same allegation, another Constable has been reinstated into service therefore petitioner is also liable to be reinstated accordingly.
5. After having gone through the contents of the inquiry report as well as impugned judgment, we are inclined to hold that full opportunity was given to him but he himself did not participate in the proceedings for the reasons best known to him. As far as the case of other Constable is concerned, who has been reinstated into servicein this behalf suffice it to say that his case cannot be discussed because we do not know what type of material was brought by the department against him and under what circumstances he was reinstated into service.
' Thus, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for exercise of jurisdiction conferred uproar this Court under Article 212, sub-Article (3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, therefore, petition is dismissed and leave declined.