Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: RASHID ALI VS Respondent: SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HEADQUARTERS, LAHORE
1997 P L C (C
1997 P L C (C. S.) 693
[Service Tribunal Punjab]
Before Safdar Hussain Shah Jafri, Member‑I
RASHID ALI
versus
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HEADQUARTERS, LAHORE and 2 others
Appeal No. 1408 of 1994, decided on 24th October, 1996.
Police Rules, 1934‑--
‑‑‑‑R. 12.21‑‑‑Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R.6‑‑‑Discharge from service‑‑‑Civil servant who was police constable was discharged from service on allegations that he quarrelled with a Head Constable and also absented himself from duty for about six months‑‑‑Civil servant conceded that he quarrelled with Head Constable as he had lost temper when Head Constable insulted him, but he asserted that penalty of "discharge" from service could have legally be imposed on him only if his work and conduct remained unsatisfactory during three years period of his probation‑‑‑Civil servant had further contended that provision of R. 12.21 of Police Rules, 1934 could not legally be invoked in his case when a specific charge of misconduct had been brought against him in which procedure laid down under Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 alone could have been followed‑‑‑Contention of civil servant having force, penalty of discharge from service imposed on him could not be sustained in law‑‑ Civil servant was ordered to be re‑instated, but in view of allegation of misconduct, penalty of forfeiture of two years' approved service was imposed on him.
Muhammad Yasin Bhatti for Appellant. Manzoor Hussain Bhatti, District Attorney for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 17th September, 1996.
JUDGMENT
The appellant was discharged from service under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as he had served for a period of less than 3 years when, according to the statement of the respondents, he was involved in a quarrel with a Head Constable, the rifle in his custody fell down and fired although the Head Constable luckily escaped. He also absented himself from duty from 25‑7‑1992 till he was discharged from service vide order dated 31‑1‑1993 passed by the Superintendent of Police (Hqs.), Lahore. His appeal was rejected by the D.I.‑G. of Police, Lahore Range on 3‑10‑1993 and his revision petition met the same fate on 15‑9‑1994 at the hands of the Additional I.‑G. Police, Punjab, Lahore.
2. The appellant conceded in the course of hearing of the instant appeal that he had lost temper as the Head Constable Qurban Ali had insulted him. The appellant recants but asserts that the penalty of "discharge" from service could have legally been imposed on the appellant had his work and conduct remained unsatisfactory during the 3 years period of his probation; that the provisions of Rule 12.21 of the Police Rules could not have legally been invoked in the instant case in which a specific charge of misconduct was brought against the appellant as in that case, the procedure laid down under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 alone could have been followed if it was intended to clothe the proceedings against the p appellant with any semblance of legality.
3. In view of the foregoing, I am of the considered view that the penalty imposed on the appellant could not be sustained in law. However, the fact remains that the appellant had misconducted himself even if it is assumed that he was driven to a state of mind by the given circumstances. The mischief of the moment must be discounted while the appellant should be appropriately reprimanded so that it continues to remind him of the consequences of the loss of self‑control on his part.
4. In view of the foregoing, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and reinstate the appellant in service with the stipulation that the penalty of forfeiture of 2 years' approved service shall be imposed on the appellant. The period during which he has remained out of service since he was discharged till he resumes duty shall be treated as leave subject to title.
5. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
H.B.T./524/Sr.P Appeal accepted.