1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (TRAFFIC), LAHORE
| Citation | 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (TRAFFIC), LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (TRAFFIC), LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Departmental enquiry Cross-examination of prosecution witness by accused‑Essential ‑ Refusal of such opportunity ‑ Renders enquiry seriously defective‑Consequential penalty order‑Not sustainable.
Judgment & Decree
M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑Mohammed Aslam, appellant, has filed this appeal against the order of dismissal from service by the Inspector‑General of Police.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant was posted as Naib Court of Assistant Commissioner, Lahore Cantonment. On 21st March. 1978 one Mr. M. Siddique was challaned by the Traffic Police near G. P. O. Crossing, The Mall, Lahore, and his vehicle was impounded with the direction to appear in the Court of Assistant Commissioner on 22ed‑‑ March. ‑ 1978. ' But on 21st March, 1978 Mr. Siddique came to the Court of Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner imposed a fine of Rs.
250. Mr. Siddique was interested to get his vehicle released the same day but the Assistant Commissioner was not present. The Traffic Magistrate who was approached by Mr. Siddique ordered the release of the vehicle on Superdari on the condition that Mr. Siddique should execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 50,
000. On the basis of Superdari, the appellant issued a Robkar on which the vehicle in question was released. Mr. Siddique then made a complaint that the appellant bad demanded a bribe of Rs. 250 which was paid to him. An enquiry was conducted and S. P. Traffic Police passed the order of dismissal of the appellant from service. The D. I. G., on appeal, modified the order and ordered reduction of pay of the appellant from Rs. 284 to Rs. 277 p. m. The appellant made an appeal to the I. G. and the I. G. after hearing the appellant issued a show‑cause notice and later on dismissed him from service. We have heard the parties. The appellant has urged that he was not given an opportunity to cross‑examine the complainant Mr. Siddique when his evidence was recorded in the enquiry and secondly the Assistant Commissioner was not produced as a witness and that his only fault was that he issued a Robkar. By not examining the Assistant Commissioner and not allowing the appellant to cross‑examine the complainant, the enquiry suffers from serious defects. Cross‑examination of the complainant by the appellant was essential in order to determine the correctness of the charge of bribery. In view of the defects the order of dismissal is liable to be set aside. We set aside the order of the I. G. dismissing the appellant from service. The order of the D. I. G. reducing the pay of the appellant from Rs. 284 to Rs. 277 p. m. as ordered‑by the D. I. G. appears to be the correct one for the irregularity committed by the appellant. Appeal allowed.