1973 PLP 24 (SCMR)
LAHORE RANGE, LAHORE‑Petitioner Versus Ch. GULZAR AHMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | 1973 PLP 24 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | LAHORE RANGE, LAHORE‑Petitioner Versus Ch. GULZAR AHMAD‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1973 PLP 24 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1973 PLP 24 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1973 PLP 24 (SCMR) (LAHORE RANGE, LAHORE‑Petitioner Versus Ch. GULZAR AHMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rustam S. Sidhwa, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- D. M. Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 9th January 1973.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 7th February 1972, in Civil Miscellaneous No. 847/S of 1967). Punjab Police Rules, 1934, r. 16.28‑D. I. G. has to make or direct further investigation before passing any order under r. 16.28.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing : 9th January 1973. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑Respondent Ch. Gulzar Ahmad was Sub‑Inspector of Police at the relevant time and an inquiry for misconduct was started against him under the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called the Rules). The Inquiry Officer submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police exonerating the respondent from all the charges. The Superintendent of Police, who was the appointing and dismissing authority for the respondent, accepted the report, and ordered that the papers be filed. Subsequently, however, the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police disagreed with the order of the Superintendent of Police and issued a notice to the respondent to show cause why he should not be reduced to the rank of Assistant Sub‑Inspector of Police. The Deputy Inspector‑General of Police on a consideration of the evidence already on record passed the impugned order holding the respondent guilty of the charges and ordering that he be reduced to the rank of the A. S. I. Police. The respondent's appeal having been dismissed by the Addi tional Inspector‑General of Police, the respondent approached the High Court on a Constitution petition and the petition was allowed. It has been contended before us on behalf of the petitioner, Deputy Inspector‑General of Police that the Rules not having provided for a contingency of the present kind Rule 16.26 of the Police Rules apply, and the petitioner being the superior Police officer is empowered to pass the impugned order. Even if the contention be accepted, Rule 16.28 does not authorise the D. I.‑G. to award a penalty without making further investigation. The Rule reads as follows:‑‑ "16.28 (1) The Inspector‑General, Additional Inspector General, a Deputy Inspector‑General and a Superintendent of Police may call for and examine the records of any case and (a) may inflict any punishment specified in sub‑rule (2) of rule 16.1, in any case in which no punishment has been inflicted; and (b) confirm, enhance, modify or annul tile punishment in any case in which any punishment specified in sub‑rule (2) of rule 16.1 has been inflicted ; and make or direct to be made further investigation before passing orders." It is thus evident that the D. I.‑G. could make further investigation or direct such investigation to be made before passing any order of punishment. It has been conceded on behalf of the petitioner that no such investigation had been made by the D. L‑G. It is also admitted that the Rules do not provide for any appeal or revision from such order of acceptance of the report, of the Inquiry Officer by a competent authority. We, accordingly, do not find any fault with the impugned order of the High Court, and dismiss the petition. Leave refused.