Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2006 P L C (C

2006 P L C (C.S.) 977

[Punjab Service Tribunal]

Before Justice (Retd.) Rustam Ali Malik, Chairman

MAQSOOD ALAM, EX-A.S.-I.

Versus

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HEADQUARTERS, LAHORE and 2 others

Appeal No.1364 of 2004, decided on 4th May, 2006.

Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999---

----R. 4(b)(v)---Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4---Penalty of dismissal from service---Imposition of---Appeal---Appellant, who was serving as A.S.-I. in Police Department, was proceeded against on disciplinary grounds---Major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on appellant after serving him with show-cause notice on allegation of gross misconduct---Appeal filed by appellant against his dismissal order was also dismissed by Tribunal---Aggrieved by judgment of Service Tribunal' appellant filed constitutional petition, which was accepted by High Court and case was remanded to Service Tribunal for decision on merits---Allegation against accused was that he was involved in a criminal case---Co-accused of appellant, who was involved in the same criminal case in which appellant was also an accused, was also proceeded against, but was reinstated in service on account of his acquittal in the criminal case along with accused---Appeal of appellant filed against impugned order was accepted and he was reinstated in service and matter was remanded to competent authority, with direction that, if considered necessary appellant could be proceeded afresh by directing a regular inquiry into the matter in accordance with law and thereafter to pass a fresh order on the basis of inquiry report.

Syed Rashid Hashmi, for Appellant.

Khadim Hussain Sindhu, District Attorney Naseer Ahmad, Inspector Legal, CPO and Ashby Ahmad, Head Constable, CCPO Departmental Representation for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 4th May, 2006.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE (RETD.) RUSTAM ALI MALIK (CHAIRMAN).---The appellant who was serving as A.S.-I. in the Police Department was proceeded against on disciplinary grounds. He was served with a show-cause notice, dated 12-11-2001 wherein the allegation against him was as following:--

"That you have been involved in case F.I.R. No.135, dated 30-8-1999 under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. Police Station Johar Town. Being a member of disciplined force, involvement in a criminal case is gross misconduct on your part."

2. The appellant filed reply to the show-cause notice denying the charge against him. However respondent No.l being the competent authority imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service on him vide the impugned order, dated 31-7-2002. The appellant preferred a departmental appeal before respondent No.2 which was dismissed vide order, dated 7-10-2002. He then preferred a revision petition before respondent No.3 which also did not find favour. He then had recourse to this Tribunal. The appeal filed by him was dismissed. as time-barred by this Tribunal vide a consolidated judgment, dated 29-11-2004 passed in Service Appeal No.1855 of 2004 and other such-like appeals. Aggrieved of the judgment of this Tribunal, the appellant filed C.P. No.51-L of 2005 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was accepted and the case was remanded to this Tribunal for decision on merits. After remand this appeal has come up for hearing before this Tribunal.

3. I have heard the arguments advanced from both sides.

4. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that a co-accused of the appellant namely Ahmad Parvez Khan who was involved in the same criminal case in which the appellant was also an accused had also filed appeal before this Tribunal (Appeal No.2671 of 2002) and which was accepted on 28-1-2003 and respondent No.1 was directed to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. The impugned orders of the departmental authorities in the said appeal had been set aside by this Tribunal on the ground that no regular inquiry was held in the matter. He has also pointed out that another co-accused of the appellant namely Muhammad Khan Niazi, Constable No.11441 was reinstated into service by the Capital City Police Officer vide his order, dated 13-4-2005 on account of his acquittal iii the same criminal case. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, dated 1-4-2005 in the criminal case "The State v. Riaz and others." and whereby the appellant and his co-accused had been acquitted in the criminal case F.I.R. No.135 of 1999' registered on 30-8-1999 in Police Station Johar Town, Lahore under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C.

5. Since this Tribunal had set aside the orders of the departmental authorities in Service Appeal No.2671 of 2002 vide order, dated 28-1-2003 with the direction for fresh proceedings, including a detailed enquiry and since vide his order, dated 13-4-2005, the Capital City Police Officer has accepted the representation/departmental appeal of Muhammad Khan Niazi, Constable No.11441, who was a co-accused of the appellant, this appeal can also be accepted on the same ground on which the above mentioned service appeal was accepted by this Tribunal and hence the matter is to be sent back to the competent authority for fresh proceedings against the appellant in accordance with law.

6. In view of what has been stated above, this appeal is accepted, the impugned orders are set aside, the appellant is reinstated in service and the matter is remanded to the competent authority i.e. respondent No.1/S.P. Headquarters, Lahore with the direction that, if considered necessary, he can proceed afresh against the appellant by directing a regular inquiry into the matter in accordance with law and thereafter to pass a fresh order on the basis of the inquiry report.

H.B.T./16/PST???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant