1989 SCMR 1578 (PLP)

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J: ‑The petitioner was Assistant Sub‑Inspector of Police and was posted in C.I.A., Bahawalpur. On 16‑11‑1981, a raiding party headed by a Magistrate surprised him while accepting Rs.500 by way of illegal gratification from one Ghulam Muhammad. As soon as the Magistrate disclosed to him his identity, the petitioner pushed him and ran away. He then entered the English office of the Deputy Commissioner and placed the money which he received from Ghulam Muhammad in the pocket of a constable. He then dsappeared. A criminal case for accepting illegal gratification was registered against him with the Anti‑corruption Establishment. He has since been challaned in this case.

2. Soon after the aforementioned incident the petitioner was placed under suspension and a show‑cause notice was drafted for service upon him. The petitioner could not be traced out with the result that notice could not be served upon him. He was arrested on 3‑2‑1982 and was bailed out on 22‑2‑1982. It was thereafter that he received the show‑cause notice and submitted a reply thereto. He was heard by the Superintendent of Police, Bahawalpur who by an order, dated 2‑5‑1982 removed him from service. The relevant portion of the order made in this regard reads as follows:‑ "Having considered the pros and cons of the case I am clear is my mind that the accused A.S.1 did commit the misconduct by maltreating the raiding Magistrate thereby acting in a manner prejudicial to good order and 'pie m to Police Force. Besides, his consistent an persistent behavior of breach of discipline in absenting himself without leave or permission and making attempts to hamper with the lawful departmental proceedings, warrant his removal from service on these counts only."

3. From the order of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police. It was dismissed. He then preferred an appeal before the Provincial Service Tribunal but that too met with no success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.

4. In support of this petition, two contentions have been raised. It is contended that the question whether the petitioner had maltreated the raiding Magistrate was one of fact which required an inquiry and the Superintendent of Police should not have dispensed with the requirement of an inquiry before holding the petitioner guilty. The second contention is that absence from duty was not a charge included in the show‑cause notice and therefore this allegation should not have been taken into consideration by the Superintendent of Police.

5. After going through the order of the learned Tribunal anti hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are not satisfied that this is a fit case where leave to appeal should be granted. It was a matter of discretion with the Superintendent of police whether the allegation of maltreatment of the Magistrate required a detailed inquiry or not. As regards his absence form duty, it is admitted that soon after the raid he left Bahawalpur for Lahore without permission and was for about 3 months untraceable. Even though his case was that he was getting treatments at Lahore in a police hospital, the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Lahore, could not discover his whereabout. This is not a fit case for interference. The petition is dismissed. M.A‑K/R‑87/S Petition dismissed.