1990 PLP 1498 (SCMR)

RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.‑‑‑This is a petition filed by Safdar Hussain, petitioner, seeking leave to appeal against the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 7‑10‑1987 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case arc that Safdar Hussain S.I., petitioner, was posted as S.H.O., Police Station Naushera, District Khushab, in the year 1985. On 2‑11‑1985 a young girl Mst. Zatoon aged 10 years was raped by one Mumtaz. When the respectables of the town came to the police station on the same day at about 4‑30 p.m. and reported the matter to the petitioner in the presence of the Addl. S.H.O. of the police station, they were referred to Civil Hospital, Khushab, without a case being registered against the accused and without giving the complainant party any docket for the medical examination of the minor girl. When the complainant party went to Khushab and then to Jauharabad to get the minor girl medically examined, they were refused, due to the absence of a docket from the police. They again came to Police Station Naushera on 3‑11‑1985 and met Nazar Muhammad, Moharrir, who recorded a case under section 18 of Zina Ordinance, 1979, against the accused, instead of the under section 10 of the Zina Ordinance. The petitioner was charge‑sheeted on 7‑12‑1985 in respect of his misconduct. The petitioner was held guilty of the misconduct by the Inquiry Officer on 3‑1‑1986. The S.P., Khushab, taking a lenient view of the matter, imposed penalty of forfeiture of two years' approved service. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the D.I.‑G., Sargodha Region, who dismissed the said appeal. The petitioner then filed a representation before the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab which was likewise rejected on 28‑4‑1987. The petitioner finally preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, against the said orders, which was ultimately dismissed on 7‑10‑1987.

3. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that on the date of incident when the minor girl was raped, the petitioner was unwell and in his Barrack and, therefore, an obligation of recording the F.I.R. fell on the Addl. S.H.O. of the police station, who was also present when the complainant party and respectables of the village appeared before them at 4‑30 p.m. that day.

4. The Tribunal has threadbare gone into this question and we see no good reasons to differ from the opinion arrived at by them. The illness of the petitioner was not so serious. According to the statements of the witnesses of the complainant party, they had met the petitioner al the police station at about 4‑30 p.m. on the day of incident and reported the matter to him. The next day at 7‑00 a.m., the petitioner was well and went to secure remand of an accused involved in a theft case. He could have directed his subordinates on 2‑11‑1985 to register the F.I.R. and to issue a docket to the complainant party to enable them to get the minor girl medically examined. The fact that he did not do so, only shows that he was not interested to help the complainant, who was a poor man. No exception can be taken to the findings of the Tribunal. No substantial question of law of public importance arises in this case. There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed in limine. AA./S‑511/S Petition dismissed