2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Maqbul Ilahi Malik, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Zaidi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Ms. Afshan Ghazanfar, A.A.‑G. with Zafar Iqbal, Inspector Legal for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th January, 2004. SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.‑‑‑Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 22‑1‑2003, passed in Appeal No.2377 of 2002.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner Inspector/S.H.O., Police, Station Kharianwala, District Gujrat, was served with a show‑cause notice on the ground that he miserably failed to arrest the accused involved in Crime No. 16, dated 9‑2‑2002, registered under sections 302/324/353/34/223/109, P.P.C. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show‑cause notice. The competent authority after extending personal hearing to the petitioner reduced his rank from Inspector to Sub‑Inspector with immediate effect vide order dated 7‑5‑2002. Against the aforesaid order, petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Inspector‑General of Police vide order dated 13‑9‑2002. He challenged the legality of the aforesaid orders through appeal, which, too, was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide judgment impugned herein. Hence this petition.

3. Mr. Maqbul Ilahi Malik, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the impugned orders are arbitrary, capricious, illegal, void ab initio, which may be set aside; that the Tribunal had not applied its independent mind to various aspects of the case, which resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is too harsh; therefore, leave to appeal may be granted.

4. Ms. Afshan Ghazanfar, learned A.A.‑G. Punjab vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and pointed out that proper inquiry was held in which the petitioner was found guilty; that the competent authority as well as the learned Tribunal considered the case in its true perspective and the punishment awarded to the petitioner is in consonance with the guilt of the petitioner, which was Duly established during the inquiry wherein he was allowed proper opportunity of personal hearing.

5. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and minutely perused the material available on the file. The department proceeded against the petitioner in accordance with law by providing him proper opportunity to defend his case and the Inquiry Officer found him guilty, with the result that he was reverted to the post of Sub‑Inspector. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the departmental authorities was also barred by, time. The departmental authorities as well as the Tribunal have considered each and every aspect of the case. The petitioner has shown lethargy and sluggishness for which he was rightly punished by the authorities. The impugned judgment is well‑reasoned and is based‑on the proper appreciation of the entire material produced before the learned Tribunal. There is no misreading, or non‑reading of the material or misconstruction of law. Moreover, substantial question of general public importance, as envisaged under Article 212(2) of the Constitution, is also not made out in this case.

6. For the facts, circumstances and reasons mentioned hereinabove, there is no merit and substance in this petition, which is hereby dismissed alongwith the listed application and leave to appeal declined. S.A.K./M‑43/S Leave refused.