2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
FAQEER HUSSAIN Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL POLICE and others
| Citation | 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | FAQEER HUSSAIN Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL POLICE and others |
| Primary Law | (b) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑, (a) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑, (a) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (FAQEER HUSSAIN Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL POLICE and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th May, 2003.
- 2. Mr. Zahid Hussain Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner has contended that the factum of wilful absence could not be proved as the petitioner never remained absent but on account of serious ailment could not perform his duties and medical certificates in support thereof were produced before authorities concerned but to no, avail. It is urged with vehemence that proper opportunity of hearing was never afforded to the petitioner which resulted into serious miscarriage of justice. It is also contended that the instructions contained in para. 9‑1(v) of Circular No. 2661‑2706/DISC‑1, dated 21‑12‑1995 which, inter alia, provides for regular inquiry where major penalty of dismissal was to he awarded has been violated.
- 3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of the petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. The judgment impugned has been perused. After having gone through the entire record we are of the considered opinion that the prime contention of learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner seems to be devoid of merit as it does not find support from record which speaks otherwise. Every possible effort was' made by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad to get the show‑cause notice served upon the petitioner but in vain. A messenger namely Muhammad Mansha, Police Constable, was also sent to get the process served. The petitioner kept himself disassociated knowingly and deliberately from the disciplinary proceedings and thus it cannot be agitated now that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. The factum of wilful absence amounting to misconduct has been proved. The learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner while heavily relying on the instructions contained in para. 9‑1(v) of Circular No.2661‑2706/DISC‑1, dated 21‑12‑1995 argued that the regular inquiry could not have been dispensed with in oblivion of the act that inquiry was held by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gulberg who found the petitioner guilty of the charge even otherwise the regular inquiry can be dispensed with in view of the provisions as envisaged in Rule 6 of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The petitioner was dismissed on two different occasions from service and earned twelve punishment on account of wilful absence which indicates that he is least interested in his service.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 13‑11‑2000 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, passed in Appeal No. 2478 of 1999). ‑‑‑‑Rr. 4(1)(b), 5 & 6‑‑‑Circular No. 2661‑2706/DISC‑1, dated 21‑12‑1995, Para. 9(1)(v)‑‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Misconduct‑‑ Compulsory retirement from service‑‑‑Wilful absence from duty‑‑ Service Tribunal maintained such penalty‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servant had kept himself disassociated from disciplinary proceedings deliberately, though competent Authority had made every possible effort to get show cause notice served upon him, but in vain‑‑‑Inquiry Officer had found civil servant guilty of such charge ‑‑‑Factum of wilful absence amounting to misconduct had been proved‑‑‑Dismissal of civil servant from service on two different occasions on account of wilful absence indicated that he was least interested in service‑‑‑No question of law of public importance was involved‑‑‑Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal. ‑‑‑‑Rr. 4(1)(b), 5 & 6‑‑‑Circular No. 2661‑2706/DISC‑1, dated 21‑12‑1995, Para. 9(1)(v)‑‑‑Major penalty, imposition of‑‑‑Regular inquiry could be dispensed with in view of provisions of R. 5 of Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑-- ‑‑‑‑Rr. 4(1)(b), 5 & 6‑‑‑Circular No. 2661‑2706/DISC‑1, dated 21‑12‑1995, Para. 9(1)(v)‑‑‑Major penalty, imposition of‑‑‑Regular inquiry could be dispensed with in view of provisions of R. 5 of Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th May, 2003. JAVED IQBAL, J.‑‑‑Pursuant to disciplinary action initiated under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad by means of order, dated 15‑9‑1998. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was rejected by DIG of Police vide order, dated 5‑5‑1999. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was partly accepted by the Inspector‑General of Police and the penalty of dismissal from service was altered , to that of compulsory retirement.
2. Mr. Zahid Hussain Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner has contended that the factum of wilful absence could not be proved as the petitioner never remained absent but on account of serious ailment could not perform his duties and medical certificates in support thereof were produced before authorities concerned but to no, avail. It is urged with vehemence that proper opportunity of hearing was never afforded to the petitioner which resulted into serious miscarriage of justice. It is also contended that the instructions contained in para. 9‑1(v) of Circular No. 2661‑2706/DISC‑1, dated 21‑12‑1995 which, inter alia, provides for regular inquiry where major penalty of dismissal was to he awarded has been violated.
3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of the petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. The judgment impugned has been perused. After having gone through the entire record we are of the considered opinion that the prime contention of learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner seems to be devoid of merit as it does not find support from record which speaks otherwise. Every possible effort was' made by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad to get the show‑cause notice served upon the petitioner but in vain. A messenger namely Muhammad Mansha, Police Constable, was also sent to get the process served. The petitioner kept himself disassociated knowingly and deliberately from the disciplinary proceedings and thus it cannot be agitated now that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. The factum of wilful absence amounting to misconduct has been proved. The learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner while heavily relying on the instructions contained in para. 9‑1(v) of Circular No.2661‑2706/DISC‑1, dated 21‑12‑1995 argued that the regular inquiry could not have been dispensed with in oblivion of the act that inquiry was held by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gulberg who found the petitioner guilty of the charge even otherwise the regular inquiry can be dispensed with in view of the provisions as envisaged in Rule 6 of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The petitioner was dismissed on two different occasions from service and earned twelve punishment on account of wilful absence which indicates that he is least interested in his service.
4. The conclusion as arrived at by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal is strictly in accordance with law and settled norms of justice and being well based hardly warrants any interference. No question of law of public importance is involved in the matter on the basis whereof leave to appeal could be granted and accordingly the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./F‑3/S Leave refused.