KASHIF AFTAB KHAN vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal regarding his discharge from service. The core legal question is whether a probationer police officer can be discharged from service for unsatisfactory conduct without holding a regular departmental inquiry under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the competent authority can dispense with the services of a civil servant during the probationary period due to unsatisfactory performance without conducting a regular inquiry or issuing a show-cause notice, in accordance with Rule 12.8 of the Police Rules, 1934. The key principle laid down is that the services of a probationer can be straightforwardly terminated upon finding their performance or conduct unsatisfactory during the probationary period.
- Can a probationer police officer be discharged from service for unsatisfactory conduct without a regular departmental inquiry?
- Whether the competent authority can dispense with the services of a civil servant during the probationary period without issuing a show-cause notice?
- Does Rule 12.8 of the Police Rules 1934 permit straightaway discharge of a probationer whose conduct is reported to be extremely unsatisfactory?
- Rule 12.8, Police Rules 1934
' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH. J.---Leave is sought against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 26-10-2001, passed in Appeal No,2337 of 2000.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who had beendirectly appointed as Police Inspector on 1-7-1998 and was still on probation, alongwith a private person, went to Uganda Hotel, in the jurisdiction of Police Station Qila Gujjar Singh, Lahore, where they demanded travel documents, on pistol point from a foreigner (Mr. Martin - European) and then took him to police station. Petitioner also demanded Rs,50,000 for his release and finally snatched Rs,25,000 from his purse. This matter was published in the National Pressand Mr. Martin had reported this incident to superior police officers. F.I.R. Was lodged against the petitioner, investigation held and unlicensed pistol was also recovered from the petitioner. Mr. Martin foreigner left the country soon after and in the absence of follow up of the case, criminal proceedings were dropped against the petitioner. However, departmental proceedings continued and concluded in his discharge from service on 31-3-2000.
He made a representation, which was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed a service appeal, which, too, was dismissed. Hence, this petition.
3. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Cheema, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that this being a case of misconduct, proceedings should have been conducted and concluded against the petitioner and regular inquiry should have been held in terms of E&D Rules; that the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in law because it did not consider and appreciate the law points involved in the case; and that leave to appeal may be granted.
4. We have considered the points raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and minutely perused the material available on record. Admittedly, a show-cause notice was served on the petitioner, to which he replied which was duly considered and also after hearing the petitioner in person, he was discharged from service. It was not a case of action under E&D Rules but of straightaway discharge from service in terms of Rule 12.8 of Police Rules, as the petitioner had only few months service as Police Inspector when his conduct was reported to be extremely unsatisfactory. It would be advantageous to refer here the case of Ijaz Ahmad Dar v. Director- General, Pakistan Rangers (PLD 2003 SC 913 at p.914) wherein this Court held as under:-- "Even on merits the civil servant had no case, as the Competent Authority on finding the performance of the civil servant unsatisfactory during probationary period, could dispense with his services without issuing any show-cause notice."
In this view of the matter, contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are not tenable and are repelled. The learned Tribunal did consider the factual as w ell as legal aspects of the case and rightly B dismissed the appeal. The impugned judgment is based on the proper appreciation of law laid down by this Court and is not open to exception.
5. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal declined.