2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD ILYAS Versus POLICE DEPARTMENT
| Citation | 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal, Member-I |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ILYAS Versus POLICE DEPARTMENT |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Service Tribunal bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal, Member-I.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD ILYAS Versus POLICE DEPARTMENT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamid Hassan Pirzada for Appellant. D.A.
Headnotes / Summary
Rr.3 & 4(1)(b)(iii)
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4
Appellant was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement on allegation of misconduct/ releasing proclaimed offender on his own, after his arrest
No regular inquiry was held in the case
Other official who was also co-accused in the same case of disciplinary proceedings, was awarded lesser penalty
Appellant had contended that order passed against him was ab initio illegal and void since Superintendent of Police could not exercise the powers as Authority as appellant happened to be co-accused along with an Inspector and in accordance with law, only the Authority in the case of senior co-accused could pass orders in the case of appellant as well
Deputy Inspector-General of Police, under law, could act as the Authority in case of appellant as he was Authority in cases of co- accused/S.H.O.
Impugned orders passed by D.P.O./S.P., could not sustain being not in accordance with law
Impugned/original orders passed by incompetent Authority, were set aside and case was remanded to concerned Authority/D.I.-G. to take a fresh and independent decision.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL (MEMBER-I).
Appeal assails the order, dated 1-10-2003 vide which the appellant was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement on allegation of misconduct/ releasing P.O. at his own after arrest, although no regular inquiry was held. Appellant challenged the orders in departmental appeal, but his appeal was rejected through appellate order, dated 6-5-2004, hence the present appeal in this Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant states at the very outset that the S.H.O./Inspector Riaz Ahmad was also co-accused in the same case of disciplinary proceedings; whereas the said co-accused was awarded lesser penalty, but discrimination was made against the appellant and he was awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement. It is next stated that impugned orders were ab initio illegal and void since D.P.O. could not exercise the powers as authority as the appellant happened to be co-accused along with the Inspector and in accordance with law only, the authority in the case of senior co-accused could pass orders in the case of the appellant as well.
3. Appeal is opposed by the respondents on the grounds that orders were passed in accordance with law.
4. I have considered contentions from both parties. I agree with learned counsel that in accordance with law only D.I.-G. could act as the authority in the case of the appellant as well since D.I.-G. was the A authority in the case of co-accused/S.H.O. The orders passed by D.P.O./S.P. Khanewal, therefore, could not sustain being not in accordance with law. Appeal is accordingly accepted and impugned/original orders passed by incompetent authority are set aside. Case is remanded to the concerned authority/D.I.-G. to take a fresh and independent decision while at the same time considering the implications of his decision in the case of co-accused/S.H.O. Resultantly, appellant shall stand reinstated and the period intervening shall be treated as leave of the kind due.
5. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. H.B.T./14/PST Order accordingly.