2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, and others
| Citation | 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal, Falak Sher and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, and others |
| Primary Law | (b) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑, (a) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑, (a) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal, Falak Sher and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Khizar Hayat, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood‑ul -Islam, Advocate‑on‑Record for petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th May, 2003.
- 3. Sh. Khizar Hayat, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of petitioner and manly contended that without having a regular inquiry the major penalty of dismissal could not have been imposed. It is also contended that in fact the petitioner was dismissed from service on account of a false and concocted case got registered by him which was finally dropped by the Director Anti‑Corruption Multan on 21‑4‑1996. It is also contended that factum of absence could not have been proved without affording proper opportunity of hearing and leading evidence to the petitioner and denial whereof amounts to serious miscarriage of justice: It is also contended that leave applied on medical grounds could not have been refused under the Leave Rules 1981.
- 4. We have carefully examined the contention as agitated on behalf of the petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have minutely perused the judgment impugned. We are not persuaded to agree with the prime contentions of learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner that regular inquiry was inevitable for the reason that it was a case of wilful absence simpliciter and hardly any controversial fact justifying a thorough probe was involved. Even otherwise regular inquiry could have been dispensed, with under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. It is not necessary that inquiry must be held in each and every case as it depends upon the circumstances of the case. The petitioner could not substantiate his ailment by producing any worthy of credence documentary evidence. He remained on leave unauthorizedly which certainly amounts to wilful absence amounting to misconduct which being question of fact has rightly been determined by the department findings whereof have been affirmed by learned Service Tribunal vide judgment impugned which cannot be upset without sufficient justification which is lacking in this case.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment. dated 7‑12‑2000 of the Punjab Service Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 1293 of 1997). ‑‑‑‑Rr. 3(b), 4(1)(b) & 6‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑ Dismissal from service‑‑‑Wilful absence‑7 ‑Non‑holding of regular inquiry‑‑‑Such penalty imposed by authority was upheld by Service Tribunal‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Such being a case of wilful absence simpliciter, wherein no controversial fact justifying a thorough probe was involved‑ Civil servant could not substantiate his ailment by producing any worthy of credence documentary evidence‑‑ ‑Civil servant had remained on leave unauthorizedly, which certainly amounted to wilful absence amounting to misconduct‑‑‑Such question of fact had rightly been determined by authority and findings whereof had been affirmed by Service Tribunal‑‑‑Such findings could not be upset in absence of sufficient justification‑‑‑No question of law of public importance was involved‑‑‑Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal. ‑‑‑‑R. 6(3)‑‑‑Regular inquiry‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Regular inquiry can be dispensed with under R. 6(3) of Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑Holding of inquiry in each and every case not necessary, but same depends upon circumstances of the case.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑-- ‑‑‑‑R. 6(3)‑‑‑Regular inquiry‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Regular inquiry can be dispensed with under R. 6(3) of Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑Holding of inquiry in each and every case not necessary, but same depends upon circumstances of the case. Sh. Khizar Hayat, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood‑ul -Islam, Advocate‑on‑Record for petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th May, 2003. JAVED IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, Bated 7‑12‑2000 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby the order, dated 13‑12‑1995 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police Multan dismissing the petitioner from service has been kept intact.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that pursuant to disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner on account of wilful absence major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed by means of order, dated 13‑12‑1995 passed, by the Senior Superintendent of Police Multan which was assailed by means of departmental appeal which was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan, vide order, dated 10‑6‑1996. The revision petition also met the same fate and dismissed by the Inspector‑General of Police Punjab vide order, dated 1‑3‑1997.
3. Sh. Khizar Hayat, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of petitioner and manly contended that without having a regular inquiry the major penalty of dismissal could not have been imposed. It is also contended that in fact the petitioner was dismissed from service on account of a false and concocted case got registered by him which was finally dropped by the Director Anti‑Corruption Multan on 21‑4‑1996. It is also contended that factum of absence could not have been proved without affording proper opportunity of hearing and leading evidence to the petitioner and denial whereof amounts to serious miscarriage of justice: It is also contended that leave applied on medical grounds could not have been refused under the Leave Rules 1981.
4. We have carefully examined the contention as agitated on behalf of the petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have minutely perused the judgment impugned. We are not persuaded to agree with the prime contentions of learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner that regular inquiry was inevitable for the reason that it was a case of wilful absence simpliciter and hardly any controversial fact justifying a thorough probe was involved. Even otherwise regular inquiry could have been dispensed, with under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. It is not necessary that inquiry must be held in each and every case as it depends upon the circumstances of the case. The petitioner could not substantiate his ailment by producing any worthy of credence documentary evidence. He remained on leave unauthorizedly which certainly amounts to wilful absence amounting to misconduct which being question of fact has rightly been determined by the department findings whereof have been affirmed by learned Service Tribunal vide judgment impugned which cannot be upset without sufficient justification which is lacking in this case. The conclusion as arrived at by learned Service Tribunal being well‑based does not warrant any interference and moreso, no question of law of public importance is involved in the matter on the basis whereof leave could be granted. The petitioner is dismissed being merit less and leave refused. S.A.K./M‑933/S Leave refused.