KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, GUJRANWALA RANGE, GUJRANWALA and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a police official challenging his removal from service following disciplinary proceedings initiated under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, on charges of corruption and misuse of authority. The core legal question was whether the major penalty of removal from service was invalid due to the absence of a regular inquiry and an alleged lack of opportunity for a fair hearing. The Supreme Court held that the petition was meritless and refused leave to appeal. The Court found that the petitioner had been afforded sufficient opportunity to explain his conduct before departmental authorities and had deliberately disassociated himself from the preliminary inquiry proceedings. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a regular inquiry is not mandatory in every case and may be dispensed with by the Competent Authority under the relevant rules. The judgment reinforces the principle that where mandatory formalities are satisfied and a fair opportunity to respond to show-cause notices is provided, the imposition of major penalties is legally sustainable, particularly when the individual's service record is unsatisfactory.
- Is it mandatory to conduct a regular inquiry in every disciplinary case against a police official?
- Can a competent authority dispense with a regular inquiry under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975?
- Can an employee's past service record be taken into consideration by the department during disciplinary proceedings?
- Rule 6(3), Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975
ORDER
' JAVED IQBAL, J---Pursuant to disciplinary action initiated under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 against the petitioner on account of corruption and or misusing his authority while posted as Naib Court in the Special Court No,9, Gujranwala, penalty of removal from service was imposed by means of order dated 20-6-1988 passed by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala. After exhausting the departmental remedies the petitioner approached the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, by means of appeal which has been dismissed, hence this petition.
2. Heard the petitioner in person who mainly contended that without holding a proper inquiry the major penalty of removal from service could not have been imposed and on this score alone the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside. It is also contended that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.
3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated by the petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. The judgment impugned has been perused. After having gone through the entire record we are of the considered opinion that proper Opportunity of hearing was afforded by the forums available in the hierarchy hence it cannot be said that the petitioner was not afforded with fair opportunity of hearing. It transpired from scrutiny of record that at first instance preliminary inquiry was conducted by the D.S.P. (Legal) and statements of Abid Hussain, Inspector of Police, Rasheed Baig, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and Muhammad Saleem son of Allah Rakha were got recorded. The petitioner deliberately kept himself disassociated from the proceedings. He, however, responded to show-cause notice dated 5-6- 1988 but his reply was not found satisfactory. It is worth-mentioning that it is not obligatory to conduct regular inquiry in each and every case which could be dispensed with by the Competent Authority under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. All the mandatory formalities have been completed and no injustice has been done to the petitioner whose service record is not satisfactory and the same can be taken into consideration by the Department. The contentions raised before this Court were dilated upon and decided in a comprehensive manner by the learned Service Tribunal vide judgment impugned, relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-- "9. I have considered the arguments of the parties and find that the appellant was given fair opportunity to explain his conduct before the departmental authorities; namely Additional Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala, and Additional Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, and Lahore, where he failed to give satisfactory account of himself. He has a chequered service record as he has been discharged under Police rule 12.21 w,e,f, 19-1-1989. He was dismissed from service vide orders dated 23-2-1987 on account of obtaining bribe to the amount of Rs,3500 from one Taj Muhammad. It would, therefore, be seen that the appellant is an incorrigible person and is not a fit person to be retained in Police service."
4. The judgment impugned being well based hardly calls for any interference and accordingly the petition for leave to appeal being meritless is dismissed and leave refused.