2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(b) Civil Service‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Disciplinary proceedings‑Holding‑of regular inquiry, necessity of‑‑ Each case has to be decided on its own merits by Departmental Authority to come to a conclusion, whether regular inquiry should be held or not‑‑ Once regular inquiry is not found necessary, then only requirement of relevant rule would be that decision to such effect should be conveyed to civil servant, who is being proceeded against. Muhammad Yawar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record Inspector (Legal) for Petitioner. Tariq Aziz for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th December, 2002. MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was charged‑sheeted for being present in a Tanga in which stolen WAPDA wire was being carried by three persons alongwith him. This conduct of the petitioner was found to be objectionable according to the police rules. He in his reply admitted that he was present in the Tanga and did not deny that in the said Tanga, stolen WAPDA wire was not being carried. In these circumstances, the authority found it not a fit case of holding regular inquiry and proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings directly of which intimation was given to the petitioner. He was heard and was found guilty of the charge and order of dismissal of his service was passed.

2. The petitioner filed appeal before the DIG under the police rules which was dismissed, thereafter, he filed revision before the Additional Inspector‑General which too was dismissed. The petitioner approached the Punjab Service Tribunal by filing appeal which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 30‑8‑1999 against which leave is sought.

3. In this case, a pure question of fact is involved which has been decided against the petitioner by the Departmental Authorities and the Service Tribunal also. No question of law of public importance is involved whereas, it is a case of individual grievance.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner faced with this difficulty tried to overcome it by arguing that it was not a case of summary proceedings and regular inquiry should have been held. In support of this, he relied upon judgments in the case of Province of Punjab through Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab and another (2000 SCMR 1321) ad Lal Muhammad and another v. Government of Sindh (1980 SCMR 850). He also argued that on the same allegation, a criminal case was registered and challan submitted to the Court against the petitioner alongwith others but they were acquitted. As regards holding of regular inquiry, each case has to be decided on its own merits by the concerned Departmental Authority to come to a conclusion whether regular inquiry should be held or not and once it is decided that it was not necessary, B the only requirement of the relevant rule was that decision to that effect should be conveyed to the concerned civil servant who was being proceeded against. We find, in this case in the show‑cause notice itself it was expressly conveyed to the petitioner that in the circumstances of the case, it was not found necessary to hold regular inquiry. In our view, decision to this effect of the Departmental Authority does not suffer from any legal infirmity, for the facts had been admitted i.e. the petitioner was caught while sitting in Tanga in which wire was being taken and it was a case of raising inference from the attending circumstances of the case therefore; it was not a case of holding of regular inquiry.

5. The case‑law referred to by learned counsel proceeds upon its own peculiar circumstances, therefore, the same is not applicable to the present case.

6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./M‑806/S Leave refused.