Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. 327/140 of 1977, decided on 17th June, 1979.
---S. 4‑Disciplinary action‑Police Officer found guilty of cowardice in emergency (fleeing away from scene of altercation between rival. parties resulting into murder)‑Charge of acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs. 10 also proved as admitted‑Dismissal, in circumstances, held, warranted no interference by Service Tribunals.
.‑Muhammad Akbar, Foot Cons table, was posted at P. S. Hasilpur in the year 1976, when he received from A. S. I. Hasilpur, an application submitted by one Nur Hussain. S. H. O., P. S. Hasilpur had directed the A. S. I. to look into the matter and report. The A. S. I. deputed Muhammad Akbar and Abdul Hamid Constables to get the opposite‑party, namely Samanda, Abdul Ghaffar, etc., when the party reached Village Badenaz there was altercation, as a result of which Samanda. Abdul Ghaffar and some others killed Nur Hussain and Samanda's daughter Mst. Karam Elahi. The two constables ran away from the scene of murder. S. P., Bahawalpur, issued Muhammad Akbar a show‑cause notice on 24‑1‑1977 and ultimately dismissed him from service on 14‑2‑1947. The appellant appealed to the D. I. G. who rejected the appeal on 18‑8‑1978. The maul grounds for the ‑dismissal was that the appellant had dis played cowardice by fleeing from the spot, where the murder took place and taking illegal gratification of Rs. 30 from Nur Hussain. We have heard the counsel for the appellant. The main contention of the appellant is that in the situation which developed he had no other alternative except to flee. Illegal gratification is not proved and no regular enquiry was held.
We find that the appellant has not acted as a police official should have in an emergency. Regarding illegal gratification there is the admission on the part of Abdul Hameed, Constable that they took Rs. 10 from Nur Hussai for refreshments. In the circumstances of the case no regular enquiry was necessary in view of the documentary evidence and admission on the parts of the appellant. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere in this case.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer