Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Aamir Siddique VS Respondent: Additional Inspector General of Police PHP, Lahore and another
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, Umar Ata Bandial, Faisal Arab Title:Aamir Siddique vs Additional Inspector General of Police PHP, Lahore and
another Case No.: Civil Petition No. 2366 of 2018 Date of Judgment:2020-03-12 Reported As: 2020 SCMR 1707 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---Our order dated 11.02.2020 is self-explanatory in reproducing the plea taken by the petitioner in person. For facility of reference it is reproduced below:- "Ex-parte inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. His absence from duty on account of which departmental proceedings were initiated is for 11 days; but certain previous absences were taken into account to charge him with non-attendance for a period of 27 days. Ultimately, he was dismissed from service for an absence period of 4 months and 21 days. The record is silent on how the calculation of his total absence from duty was made and why a period prior to the allegations in the charge sheet has been included. Issue notice." 2. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the period of absence of 04 months and 21 days includes the period of inquiry until the date of the dismissal order dated 29.12.2015, during which the petitioner remained absent from duty. However, he reiterates that in essence the case against the petitioner is absence for a period of 27 days disclosed in the charge sheet dated 27.08.2015. We have examined the inquiry report that has been placed on the record. It appears that the petitioner deliberately avoided the disciplinary proceedings and, that he had offered no defence for his period of absence. There are 23 previous bad entries on his record for similar misconduct. In the circumstances, as a member of the disciplined force the petitioner clearly acted in defiance of the code of conduct governing police officers. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.