01/07/2020
2019 S C M R 944
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Umar Ata Bandial and Munib Akhtar, JJ
SANA ULLAH---Petitioner
Versus
INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and another---Respondents
Civil Petition No. 4283 of 2017, decided on 10th October, 2018.
(On appeal from the order dated 5.6.2017 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal Lahore in Appeal No. 2690 of 2015)
Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975---
----R. 4(1)(b)(iv)--- Police official--- Serious abuse of authority---Dismissal from service---Admittedly the petitioner-police official stopped two men and a woman travelling on the road late at night---Petitioner could not give any explanation or reason for stopping the travelers except his suspicion about them---Petitioner admitted taking the said persons to the police station when clearly there was no allegation or disclosure of commission of a cognizable offence committed by the said persons---Leaving aside the disputed allegations of bribery the admitted facts reflected the mindset of the petitioner and constituted a serious abuse of authority---With such abuse of authority interfering with the lives of ordinary citizen one could infer that the purpose of the petitioner was to extract some advantage, whether pecuniary or otherwise---In such circumstances, the punishment of dismissal from service inflicted on the petitioner was justified---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.
Khalid Mansoor v. Director, FIA, Rawalpindi 2008 SCMR 1174 distinguished.
Pervaiz Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 10th October, 2018.
ORDER
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---This petition assails the judgment of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal dated 5.6.2017 which affirms the order of dismissal from service of the petitioner passed by the CCPO, Lahore on 19.3.2015. The said order was passed after the departmental inquiry was held by the SSP Operations, Lahore. Some aspects of the complaint against the petitioner may have been disputed by the latter but two facts are admitted and in fact to that extent no dispute has been raised by the petitioner even now: firstly, that the petitioner stopped the two men and a woman travelling on the road late at night. The petitioner could not give any explanation or reason except what is now stated to be his suspicion about those persons; secondly, the petitioner took them to the police station. It is clear that there is no allegation or disclosure of the commission of a cognizance offence committed by the said persons. Leaving aside the disputed allegations of bribery the said admitted facts reflect the mindset of the petitioner and constitute a serious abuse of authority. For such abuse of authority to interfere with the lives of the ordinary citizen, one can infer that the purpose was to extract some advantage, whether pecuniary or otherwise. In the circumstance, therefore, the punishment inflicted on the petitioner is justified. Learned counsel has relied on the case of Khalid Mansoor v. Director, FIA, Rawalpindi 2008 SCMR 1174, wherein the facts are completely different because the FIA Officer was under the duty to check passports which he omitted to do in one instance and disciplinary proceedings against him relaxed. In the present case there are two salient facts noted by us above, which are undisputed; consequently, neither further inquiry was necessary nor there was any limitation on the competent authority to pass the impugned order of dismissal against the petitioner.
Petition is dismissed and leave to appeal declined.
MWA/S-13/SC Petition dismissed.
