1989SCMR810 (PLP)

GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑On 3‑2‑1985, a minor girl Shaheen aged 9/10 was abducted by an unknown woman from the Omni Bus Stop Ichra More, Lahore. Mst. Ghulam Fatima, Mst. Surayya and Anwar Bibi who were present there identified the girl, saved her from the clutches of the woman and restored the child to her mother Mst. Anwar Begum. When all this was going on, Police Mobile Squad reached there. The women who saved the girl told the incharge of the Squad Muhammad In ayat what had happened. Muhammad Inayat brought the women to Police Station, Ichhra and handed them over to Muhammad Hanif A.S.I. for appropriate action. Muhammad Hanif did not bother. He let off the culprit without verifying the incident. The conduct of the A.S.I. amounted to grave misconduct under the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules 1975. He was accordingly proceeded against departmentally. A show‑cause notice was served. The A.S.I. pleaded not guilty. He was given personal hearing by the Superintendent of Police who awarded the punishment of one year approved service forfeiture permanently vide order dated 30‑4‑1985. Muhammad Hanif filed representation before the D.I.‑G., Lahore Range. It was rejected on 30‑1‑1986. Thereafter he filed revision with the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab. He waited for ninety days. Heard nothing. Then went to the Punjab Service Tribunal by way of appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 8‑10‑1986. He then filed a petition for leave to appeal in this Court. Leave was granted by order dated 21‑3‑1988 to examine as to why another police official by the name of Imdad Hussain A.S.I. who had also been named in the show‑cause notice was given a more favorable treatment and let off although the charge was the same. There was no justification to resort to two different standards. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length. He reiterated the contentions raised before the Tribunal which were repelled. His main emphasis was on the show‑cause notice served on the appellant which contained the name of the other A.S.I. Imdad Hussain who, according to the learned counsel, was equally responsible for misconduct. Learned counsel further submitted that A.S.I. Imdad Hussain having been exonerated the appellant should have also been given the same treatment because both were sailing in the same boat. No other point was urged before us. The contention has no force. Each case has to be decided on its own merits. From the order of the Tribunal it is evident that the appellant accepted the incident. The Tribunal also looked into the legal and factual position as well as the service record of the appellant. It was after taking all these aspects into consideration that the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Assistant Advocate‑General while supporting the impugned judgment referred to the adverse entries in the service record of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to controvert that position. The appellant had eight adverse entries to his credit. It is thus obvious that his service record is not of that type which a police official is supposed to have. The incident was of serious nature. We, therefore, don't think that this appeal has any merit specially when there is no question of law of public importance to be examined by us. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. A.A./M‑724/S Appeal dismissed.