MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SPECIAL
This petition arises from disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, a police official, under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1975, which resulted in his dismissal from service on grounds of wilful absence amounting to misconduct. After exhausting departmental remedies through appeals to the Deputy Inspector General and Inspector General of Police, the petitioner challenged the dismissal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld the departmental decision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the dismissal was based on malice or animosity, as alleged by the petitioner, and whether the findings of misconduct regarding wilful absence warranted judicial interference. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate his allegations of malice with evidence, noting that the claim lacked logic and reason. Furthermore, the Court observed the petitioner's poor service record, including frequent absences and multiple bad entries. Consequently, the Court affirmed the findings of the Service Tribunal, ruling that the determination of misconduct as a question of fact did not warrant interference. Leave to appeal was refused, and the petition was dismissed for being devoid of merit.
- Can a dismissal from service based on wilful absence be overturned if the petitioner fails to substantiate allegations of malice?
- Is the determination of wilful absence as a question of fact by a departmental authority subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does a poor service record, including frequent absences and bad entries, justify the dismissal of a police official for misconduct?
- Punjab Police (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1975
ORDER
' JAVED IQBAL, J.---Pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1975 on- account of wilful absence amounting to misconduct the petitioner was dismissed from service. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred before the D.I.G. Police which was rejected and revision petition was also dismissed by the I.G.
Police. The petitioner approached the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore by way of appeal which has been dismissed vide judgment impugned, hence this petition.
2. Heard the petitioner at length who mainly contended that he was dismissed from service due to malice and animosity as he had refused to hand over the official motorcycle to Mr. Aftab Chauhan son of Deputy A Inspector General of Police. He however, could not substantiate the plea of malice or enmity by leading any evidence which otherwise does- not appeal to logic and reason. How a son of D.I.G. Police having plenty of conveyance at the exclusive disposal could make such a demand from the petitioner. The service record of the petitioner is highly depressive and his performance was never assessed satisfactory and upto the mark. The petitioner remained absent on 27 different occasions for 59 days and also earned 12 bad entries during his service of short tenure. The wilful absence amounting to misconduct being question of fact has rightly been determined by the department duly affirmed by learned Service Tribunal hardly warrants any interference. The petition being devoid of merit is rejected and leave refused.