2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Capital City Police Officer Peshawar and others Versus SHAHID
| Citation | 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Gulzar Ahmed, C.J. and Ijaz ul Ahsan, J |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Capital City Police Officer Peshawar and others Versus SHAHID |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Gulzar Ahmed, C.J. and Ijaz ul Ahsan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Capital City Police Officer Peshawar and others Versus SHAHID). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Barrister Qasim Wadood, Additional AG, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for Appellants.
- Muhammad Asif, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
- GULZAR AHMED, CJ---We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as well as learned ASC for the Respondent and have gone through the material available on record. The Respondent was employed as a Police Constable in the Police Department, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. He was issued a charge sheet along with statement of allegations. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the allegations levelled against the Respondent. Despite successive notices issued to the Respondent, he did not appear before the Inquiry Officer. Although, the Respondent was informed through mobile phone to appear before the Inquiry Officer, but he avoided attending the inquiry proceedings. The Inquiry Officer recommended that a major penalty of dismissal from service be imposed upon the Respondent. On such recommendations, the competent authority in the Department issued final show cause notice to the Respondent to which he failed to submit any explanation. After having fulfilled the codal formalities, the Respondent was dismissed from service on the allegation of wilful absence from duty for a period of six months and three days, vide office order dated 04.03.2014. The departmental appeal filed by the Respondent was rejected and then he filed a Service Appeal bearing No.734 of 2014 before the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar ("the Tribunal") which vide impugned judgment dated 20.11.2017 came to the following conclusion:
- 2. The learned Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa contends that once the allegation of unauthorized absence from duty stood proved against the Respondent and the same having not been seriously disputed before the Tribunal, there was no power vested in the Tribunal to modify the penalty of dismissal from service to that of withholding of two increments for a period of two years for which the Tribunal has not cited any law, but it has just whimsically stated that the penalty imposed upon the Respondent was harsh. What are the parameters of imposition of major and minor penalties, under what circumstances such penalties are to be imposed and what law governs the imposition of such penalties, the Tribunal has not taken trouble of examining the same or making any observations in that regard in the impugned judgment. Just whimsically stating that the punishment is harsh could not be made basis by the Tribunal to modify the penalty imposed by the competent authority. Learned ASC for the Respondent has also not been able to show that the Tribunal while modifying the penalty has acted in accordance with law, in that, no law in this regard whatsoever was cited by him.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against judgment dated 20.11.2017 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar, passed in Service Appeal No. 734 of 2014).
Police official
Wilful absence from duty for a period of six months and three days
Service Tribunal considering penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon respondent to be too harsh a penalty modified the same to withholding of two increments for a period of two years and absence period was treated as leave of kind due
Tribunal had not taken trouble of examining or making any observations regarding the parameters of imposition of major and minor penalties, and circumstances under which such penalties were to be imposed and what law governed the imposition of such penalties
Whimsically stating that the punishment was harsh could not be made basis by the Tribunal to modify the penalty imposed by the competent authority
Tribunal while modifying the penalty had not acted in accordance with law, in that, no law in such regard whatsoever was cited by him
Tribunal by interfering with the penalty imposed by the department had exceeded from its jurisdiction more so when the respondent was employed in a disciplined force where he could not have remained absent from duty for a long period of 06 months and 03 days
Impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal suffered from illegality and was unsustainable in the eyes of law, therefore the same was set aside, and the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the respondent was restored
Appeal was allowed.
Judgment & Decree
GULZAR AHMED, CJ
We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as well as learned ASC for the Respondent and have gone through the material available on record. The Respondent was employed as a Police Constable in the Police Department, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. He was issued a charge sheet along with statement of allegations. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the allegations levelled against the Respondent. Despite successive notices issued to the Respondent, he did not appear before the Inquiry Officer. Although, the Respondent was informed through mobile phone to appear before the Inquiry Officer, but he avoided attending the inquiry proceedings. The Inquiry Officer recommended that a major penalty of dismissal from service be imposed upon the Respondent. On such recommendations, the competent authority in the Department issued final show cause notice to the Respondent to which he failed to submit any explanation. After having fulfilled the codal formalities, the Respondent was dismissed from service on the allegation of wilful absence from duty for a period of six months and three days, vide office order dated 04.03.2014. The departmental appeal filed by the Respondent was rejected and then he filed a Service Appeal bearing No.734 of 2014 before the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar ("the Tribunal") which vide impugned judgment dated 20.11.2017 came to the following conclusion: "It is not disputed that the appellant remained absent without permission and the stance of appellant is that he was absent due to unavoidable circumstances. In these circumstances, the impugned order appears to be harsh one and not commensurate with the lapse/guilt on the part of the appellant and as such the punishment of removal from service of the appellant is converted to withholding of two increments for two years. The absence period and intervening period shall be treated as leave of the kind due."
2. The learned Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa contends that once the allegation of unauthorized absence from duty stood proved against the Respondent and the same having not been seriously disputed before the Tribunal, there was no power vested in the Tribunal to modify the penalty of dismissal from service to that of withholding of two increments for a period of two years for which the Tribunal has not cited any law, but it has just whimsically stated that the penalty imposed upon the Respondent was harsh. What are the parameters of imposition of major and minor penalties, under what circumstances such penalties are to be imposed and what law governs the imposition of such penalties, the Tribunal has not taken trouble of examining the same or making any observations in that regard in the impugned judgment. Just whimsically stating that the punishment is harsh could not be made basis by the Tribunal to modify the penalty imposed by the competent authority. Learned ASC for the Respondent has also not been able to show that the Tribunal while modifying the penalty has acted in accordance with law, in that, no law in this regard whatsoever was cited by him.
3. For what has been discussed above, we find that the Tribunal by interfering with the penalty imposed by the department has exceeded from its jurisdiction more so when the Respondent was employed in a disciplined force where he could not have remained absent from duty for a long period of 06 months and 03 days as noted in the impugned judgment. We find that the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal suffers from illegality and is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The same is therefore set aside, the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the Respondent by the Department vide office order dated 04.03.2014 is restored and the present appeal is allowed.
4. All pending C.M.As. are also disposed of. MWA/G-7/SC Appeal allowed.