2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MANZOOR AHMAD Versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and 2 others
| Citation | 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Ch. Muhammad Sarwar, Member |
| Parties | MANZOOR AHMAD Versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and 2 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Service Tribunal bench comprising: Ch. Muhammad Sarwar, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MANZOOR AHMAD Versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mahmood Ahmed Qazi for Appellant.
- Dates of hearing: 13th December, 2001 and 21st February, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Rr. 6 & 7‑‑‑Reduction in rank‑‑‑Major punishment of reduction in rank from Assistant Sub‑Inspector of Police to Head Constable was awarded to civil servant after issuing him show‑cause notice, but without conducting regular inquiry against him and without affording him opportunity to cross- examine inquiry witnesses and to produce his defence‑ ‑Authority acted as complainant, prosecution and Judge all in one‑‑‑Punishment awarded to civil servant, in circumstances, was void‑‑‑Order awarding punishment was set aside with direction to reinstate civil servant as Assistant Sub‑Inspector. 1989 SCMR 551 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal under section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against order, dated 13‑11‑1999 vide which the appellant was awarded the major punishment of reduction in rank for A.S. ‑I. to Head Constable. Briefly stated the facts leading to the appeal are that in year 1999 the appellant was posted as Assistant Sub‑Inspector at Police Station Sadar, Summandri, District Faisalabad. Proceedings under Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 were initiated against the appellant on the following allegations:‑‑ "On 20‑9‑1999 at 12‑30 a.m. during the visit of SSP, Faisalabad at Police Station Saddar Sammundri, Noor Ahmed son of Ghulam resident of Chak No. 415/GB was found illegally confined in Police Station lock‑up by him and no case was registered against him as per police record. On 20‑9‑1999, when the said Noor Ahmed was produced before the SSP on my direction, it was found that he has registered case F.I.R. No. 469 dated 19‑9‑1999 under section 13/20/65 A.O. at Police Station, Sadar Sammundri. He deliberately did it in order to cover up the presence of said Noor Ahmed in police lock‑up with mala fide."
2. In reply to the show‑cause notice the appellant denied the allegations. His plea was not considered satisfactory. After giving him personal hearing he was awarded the major punishment of reduction in rank from A.S.‑I. to Head Constable vide impugned order, dated 13‑11‑1999, The departmental appeal was rejected on 29‑7‑2000 and revision petition was rejected on 9‑4‑2001. Hence this appeal.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, departmental representative and have perused the record and objections to the memorandum of appeal submitted by the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that case F.I.R. No.469 of 1999 under section 13/20/65 was registered against Noor Muhammad son of Ghulam Muhammad on 19‑9‑1999. Noor Muhammad accused made confession before learned Magistrate Section 30 on 23‑10‑1999 and he was awarded the punishment of fine of Rs.500. Photocopy of charge‑sheet and copy of the order of learned Magistrate dated 23‑10‑1999 and photocopy of challan form for depositing Rs.500 are placed with the file.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the appellant was awarded the major punishment without conducting regular inquiry against him. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that SSP Faisalabad conducted the inspection of Police Station, Sadar Sammundri, he was complainant as well as authority in this case. The authority violated the principle of natural justice. He was complainant and witness but he assumed the role of prosecution and judge. The order of awarding the major punishment is thus nullity in the eyes of law. He relied upon 1989 SCMR 551.
6. The respondents in their objections to the memorandum of appeal have stated that Noor Muhammad was confined in the Police Station without registering any case against him. This fact came into the light during the visit of SSP on 20‑9‑1999 to the Police Station. The appellant registered antedated F.I.R. under section 13/20/65 in order to justify the arrest of Noor Muhammad. He was awarded major punishment after hearing him.
7. SSP Faisalabad while inspecting the Police Station failed to sign and write note on the last written F.I.R., daily diary etc. On the other hand photocopy of F.I.R. No.469 of 1999 dated 19‑9‑1999 has been placed with the appeal to proof that the case was registered against Noor Muhammad on 19‑9‑1999. Noor Muhammad was convicted by the trial Magistrate.
8. The appellant denied the allegations in reply to the show‑cause notice but he was awarded the major punishment without conducting regular inquiry in the matter and without affording the ‑opportunity to cross‑examine the inquiry witnesses and to produce his defence.
9. SSP acted as complainant, prosecution and judge Punishment awarded in the circumstances in the case is void.
10. The appeal is, therefore, accepted. The impugned orders, dated 13‑11‑1999, 29‑7‑2000 and 9‑4‑2001 are set aside. The appellant is reinstated as A.S.‑I. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./74/PST Appeal accepted.