1997 S C (PLP)

subject to confirmation by the Superintendent of Police any Assistant Superintendent of Police or Deputy Superintendent of Police of over three years' Gazetted service. 5 Confinement to quarters for a period not exceeding 15 days ‑do‑ ‑do‑ ‑do‑ Superintendent of Police also Senior, Superintendent of Police, Lahore, Assistant Superintendent, Railway Police, Deputy Superintendent‑in‑ charge of Railway Police Sub‑Division, and Officers‑in‑ charge of Police Recruits Training Centres, and subject to confirmation by the Superintendent of Police any Assistant Superintendent of Police or Deputy Superintendent of Police of over three years' Gazetted service. 6 Extra‑guard fatigue or other duty ‑do‑ ‑do‑ ‑do‑ ‑do‑ 7 Punishment drill not exceeding 15 days ‑do‑ ‑do‑ ‑do‑ ‑do‑ 8 Punishment drill not exceeding 10 days ‑do‑ ‑do‑ ‑do‑ Assistant and Deputy Superintendents 9 10 Punishment drill not exceeding 6 days Punishment drill not exceeding 5 days ‑do‑ ‑do‑ ‑do‑ ‑do‑ ‑do‑ ‑do‑ Inspectors Sub‑Inspectors The learned counsel further contended that under sub‑rule (1) of rule 16.2, the dismissal can be awarded only for the "gravest acts of misconduct" or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service, having regard to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension. The precise submission was that the Tribunal having found that the punishment of dismissal from service was unwarranted, it had no jurisdiction to award unauthorised punishment of removal from service which is not mentioned in the table subjoined to sub‑rule (2) of rule 16.1.

5. It is well settled that the Tribunal as an appellate forum cannot only examine whether the order made by the departmental authority is supported by material, but in suitable cases' can substitute the same with one which it deemed to be more proper. Refer Water and Power Development Authority v. Shah Imroz (1986 SCMR 840), Aijaz Nabi Abbasi v. Water and Power Development Authority (1992 SCMR 774), Water and Power Development Authority v. Fida Muhammad Khan (1996 SCMR 639) and WAPDA v. Abdul Sattar (1990 SCMR 934). However, the substitution of penalty has to be authorisd penalty as contemplated by the relevant law. In the instant case, the penalty of reinovai from service is not one of the specified penalties under rule 16.1. Additionally, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as a result of being awarded a lesser penalty. We also find that the order of dismissal was lawful and in conformity with rule 16.2(1), in that, the petitioner was found guilty of gravest service indiscipline. Such an act comes within the purview of "gravest acts of misconduct" as contemplated by the aforesaid rule.

6. It is doubtful whether in the circumstances of the present case, there was any mitigating circumstance to alter the punishment. However, as the impugned order has not been challenged by the respondents we would refrain from expressing any further opinion on this point.

7. For the foregoing reasons, it is not ‑ a fit case to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. Leave is refused. A. A./M‑3331 /S Leave refused.