2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus REGIONAL POLICE OFFICER, BAHAWALPUR and others
| Citation | 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mehmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui and Mian Saqib Nisar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus REGIONAL POLICE OFFICER, BAHAWALPUR and others |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 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 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mehmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui and Mian Saqib Nisar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus REGIONAL POLICE OFFICER, BAHAWALPUR and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shabbir Ahmad Bhutta, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Ghulam Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Zaka-ur-Rehman, Additional A.-G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd June, 2011.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 19-2-2010 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 1463 of 2009).
Rr. 4(1)(b), 5 & 6
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 212(3)
Compulsory retirement from service
Imposition of such penalty on basis of material collected from fact finding departmental inquiry and dispensing with regular inquiry against appellant
Dismissal of appeal by Service Tribunal
Department had not conducted any regular inquiry in the matter
Appellant had appeared in fact finding inquiry, but he had not been given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses
Such lapse had resulted into miscarriage of justice and caused prejudice to appellant
Supreme Court set aside impugned judgment and directed Authority to hold a de novo regular inquiry against appellant to be completed within specified time.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The petitioner, who was a constable in the Police Department, has been compulsory retired by the department on account of some complaint filed by a private person alleging extracting some money on the pretext of purchasing a car. However, on departmental appeal filed by the petitioner, the penalty of compulsory retirement was enhanced to dismissal from service, but this was done when the petitioner had already filed a direct service appeal against the original order.
2. It may be pertinent to mention, that before passing the order for the compulsory retirement a fact-finding departmental inquiry was conducted by the department, and it seems that on account of some material collected therein that the regular inquiry against the petitioner was dispensed with. Be that as it may, the Services Tribunal through the impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner maintaining his compulsory retirement, but has set aside the order dated 29-10-2009 passed in departmental appeal through which his penalty was enhanced. Hence this petition.
3. Heard.
4. We are not satisfied from the record produced by the learned Law Officer pursuant to the order dated 18-2-2009 that any regular inquiry has been conducted in the matter and that the petitioner was given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, who even appeared in the fact-finding inquiry. We are also not convinced, if sufficient documentary evidence was available with the department to dispense with the regular inquiry; therefore the above lapse has resulted into its miscarriage of justice, causing prejudice to the petitioner. Resultantly, by converting this petition into an appeal, it is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside with the direction to the department to hold a de novo regular inquiry against the petitioner which should be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of this judgment. Appeal accordingly, allowed. S.A.K./M-44/SC Appeal accepted.