1990 PLP 1007 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1007 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1007 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1007 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1007 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH‑‑Petitioner Versus THE INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st July, 1989.
- 3. Mian Abdur Rashid, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the facts alleged against the petitioner were controverted, it was necessary that a formal inquiry should have been held into the charges and the summary proceedings should not have been adopted in the matter. Besides, according to the learned counsel, a criminal case was also registered on the same facts and that case had ended into his acquittal. Such an acquittal made it necessary that his dismissal from service which was based on more or less the same facts should have been set aside.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 26‑7‑1987 passed in Appeal No. 600 of 1986). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Civil servant was charged with committing a dereliction of duty‑‑‑Shorter procedure of show‑cause notice and of hearing was afforded to civil servant and after considering his defence, major penalty was imposed upon him‑‑‑Civil servant's departmental appeal as also his appeal before Service Tribunal remained unsuccessful‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑ Contention was raised that facts alleged against civil servant having been controverted, a formal inquiry should have been held into the charges and summary proceedings should not have been adopted in the matter, criminal case was also registered on the same facts and that case having ended into civil servant's acquittal, dismissal from service which was based on more or less the same facts should have been set aside‑‑‑Held, civil servant was apprehended pari delicto by his superior, thus shorter procedure of his enquiry could be resorted to as per dictum of Supreme Court reported in Deputy Inpsector‑General of Police v. Anis‑ur‑Rehman Khan P L D 1985 S C 134‑‑‑Charges against civil servant included more serious charge of assisting, in contravention of law, an undertrial prisoner kept in judicial custody which was not the subject‑matter of criminal trial‑‑‑Civil servant's acquittal, from criminal offence, viz. under Prohibition Law, thus did not react in his favour so far as departmental proceedings were concerned‑‑‑No case having been made out against major penalty of dismissal, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 31st July, 1989. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioner, an ex‑Constable dismissed from service, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the dismissal of his appeal in lupine by the Service Tribunal on 26‑7‑1987.
2. The petitioner was apprehended by his superior while in the act of committing a dereliction of duty and the shorter procedure of show‑cause notice and of hearing, was afforded to him and after considering his defence, he was dismissed from service. He challenged the dismissal by a departmental appeal and did not succeed. He then approached the Service Tribunal by filing an appeal which was also dismissed in limine.
3. Mian Abdur Rashid, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the facts alleged against the petitioner were controverted, it was necessary that a formal inquiry should have been held into the charges and the summary proceedings should not have been adopted in the matter. Besides, according to the learned counsel, a criminal case was also registered on the same facts and that case had ended into his acquittal. Such an acquittal made it necessary that his dismissal from service which was based on more or less the same facts should have been set aside.
4. We have gone through the charges and find that they covered derelictions greater than that made the basis of the criminal charge. He was apprehended pari delicto by his superior. In this background the shorter procedure of his inquiry could be resorted to, as held by this Court in the case of the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Lahore and others v. Anis‑ur‑Rehman 1 Khan PLD1985SC134.
5. The charges against him included more serious charge of assisting, in contravention of law, an under‑trial prisoner kept in judicial custody which was not the subject‑matter of criminal trial. His acquittal, therefore, under the Prohibition Law does not react in his favour so far as the departmental proceedings are concerned. No case is made out for leave to appeal which is refused. AA./M‑1135/S Leave refused.