2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
AAMIR SIDDIQUE Versus ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE PHP, LAHORE and another
| Citation | 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial, Faisal Arab and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | AAMIR SIDDIQUE Versus ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE PHP, LAHORE and another |
| Primary Law | Punjab Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, Faisal Arab and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (AAMIR SIDDIQUE Versus ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE PHP, LAHORE and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Matee Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner and Petitioner in person.
- Shaukat Rauf Siddiqui, Additional A.G. and Farooq Ahmed, SSP for Respondents.
- 2. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the period of absence of 04 months and 21 days includes the period of inquiry until the date of the dismissal order dated 29.12.2015, during which the petitioner remained absent from duty. However, he reiterates that in essence the case against the petitioner is absence for a period of 27 days disclosed in the charge sheet dated 27.08.2015. We have examined the inquiry report that has been placed on the record. It appears that the petitioner deliberately avoided the disciplinary proceedings and that he had offered no defence for his period of absence. There are 23 previous bad entries on his record for similar misconduct. In the circumstances, as a member of the disciplined force the petitioner clearly acted in defiance of the code of conduct governing police officers. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 11.04.2018 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed in Appeal No. 4638 of 2016)
Rr.3(b) & 4(1)(b)(iv)
Police official
Absence from duty without any explanation
Petitioner (police official) deliberately avoided the disciplinary proceedings and offered no defence for his period of absence
Service record of petitioner reflected 23 previous bad entries for similar misconduct
As a member of the disciplined force the petitioner clearly acted in defiance of the code of conduct governing police officers
Petitioner had been rightly dismissed from service in circumstances
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.
Our order dated 11.02.2020 is self-explanatory in reproducing the plea taken by the petitioner in person. For facility of reference it is reproduced below:- "Ex-parte inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. His absence from duty on account of which departmental proceedings were initiated is for 11 days; but certain previous absences were taken into account to charge him with non attendance for a period of 27 days. Ultimately, he was dismissed from service for an absence period of 4 months and 21 days. The record is silent on how the calculation of his total absence from duty was made and why a period prior to the allegations in the charge sheet has been included. Issue notice."
2. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the period of absence of 04 months and 21 days includes the period of inquiry until the date of the dismissal order dated 29.12.2015, during which the petitioner remained absent from duty. However, he reiterates that in essence the case against the petitioner is absence for a period of 27 days disclosed in the charge sheet dated 27.08.2015. We have examined the inquiry report that has been placed on the record. It appears that the petitioner deliberately avoided the disciplinary proceedings and that he had offered no defence for his period of absence. There are 23 previous bad entries on his record for similar misconduct. In the circumstances, as a member of the disciplined force the petitioner clearly acted in defiance of the code of conduct governing police officers. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused. MWA/A-35/SC Petition dismisse