Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 258 of 1977, decided on 23rd November, 1980.

(On appeal against the order dated 14th February 1977 of Punjab Service

Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 323 of 1976).

---Art. 212--Dismissal from service---Complaint by a foreign national alleging a Police Constable wearing Belt No. 1019 having threatened him at L Railway Station and deprived him of his valuables-- Constable concerned dismissed from service on such account-Conten tion : Complainant not produced for cross-examination and show-cause notice merely a verbatim copy of complaint--Held : Record of Police itself showing petitioner baying worn Belt No. 1019 L and been assigned duty of patrolling relevant train on relevant date and no reason appearing for complainant to have lodged a false complaint and no rule requiring charge-sheet to be worded differently from complaint, contention devoid of force.

Khakan Babar, Advocate Supreme Court and Wajid Hussain, Advocate -on-Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 23rd November, 1980..

-The petitioner was dismissed by orders of Assistant Inspector-General of the Railway Police on 26-2-76. An appeal ' filed by him was rejected by the Inspector-General on 21-10-76. The Tribunal dismissed his appeal on 14-2-77. Hence this Civil Petition for Special Leave to appeal.

2. Action had been taken against the petitioner on the complaint by a Saudi Arabian national sent by him through the Ambassador of Pakistan in which it had been alleged that he was traveling by a railway train on 25-8-75 when at the Lahore Railway Station a Police constable wearing a belt bearing No. 1019 Lahore had threatened him and had deprived him of valuables. He prayed that action may be taken.

3. A preliminary inquiry on that was held under orders of the Inspector General of the Police by the Reserve Inspector-Railway Police Lines Lahore on the basis of which report was submitted which was to the effect that a Constable bearing that number was deputed for control duty on the Awami Express from Lahore to Rawalpindi on 25-8-75 and that the petitioner was that constable. Some of the witnesses testified to the des patch of petitioner along with the train. It was on the basis of this report that the Assistant Inspector-General of Police recommended to the Inspector-General of Police that before taking action against the Constable his photograph may be dispatched to tire complainant in Saudi Arabia for the purpose of identifica tion. The Inspector-General disagreed with the suggestion and passed the impugned order.

4. It has been. Submitted before us that the complainant was not produced for the purpose of cross-examination We very much doubt if any cross-examination was called for since the record of the Police itself shows that the petitioner wore belt No. 1019 Lahore and was assigned the duty of Patrolling the Awami Express from Lahore to Rawalpindi on the date on which the complainant bad traveled. Furthermore, there was no reason for the complainant to have lodged a wrong complaint against the petitioner A because he was a foreign national and he did not even know hire otherwise. It was further submitted before us that the show-cause notice was a verbatim copy of the complaint. There is no rule which requires' that the charge-sheet should be worded differently from the complaint and we find; no force in this submission.

5. It has also been submitted that he was not heard in person. He, however, has not produced before us any application in which be had asked for a personal hearing.

6. We are in full agreement with the order passed by the Service Tribunal and, therefore, dismiss this petition.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.