Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 365/172 of 1977, decided on 18th September; 1979.

‑‑‑ S. 4‑Disciplinary action‑‑Sub‑Inspector of Police imposed penalty, of forfeiture of 2 years of approved service‑Exonerated of allegations in judicial enquiry‑Penalty based merely upon such allegations, held, not sustainable.

‑‑‑This is an appeal filed by M. Anwar, Sub‑Inspector against the order of Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala forfeiting two years service of the appellant. Appellant's appeal to the D. I: G. was rejected on 24‑JO‑1977.

2. During the year 1975‑76 M. Anwar, appellant, was posted as S: H. O. Police Station, Wazirabad. On 1‑1‑1976 one Sh. Naseer Ahmad made an application to S. I. P. O. Wazirabad, alleging that be apprehended a murderous attack at the hands of Sh. Muhammad Saleem and Mian Siraj‑ul‑Haq with whom he had a dispute. This application was marked by the D. S. P. O. to the appellant for necessary action. The appellant on 3‑1‑1976 summoned the parties to the Police Station for an enquiry. During the enquiry Mian Siraj‑ul‑Haq, Sh. Muhammad Saleem and Sh. Naseer Ahmad exchanged hot words. The appellant fearing breach of the peace arrested ‑the three persons made under election 107/151 of the Cr. P. C. and produced them before the Assistant Commissioner, Wazirabad who ordered their release on bail.

3. Mian Jahangir Pervaiz son of Mian Siraj‑ul‑Haq, who happened to be the President of P. P. P. Wazirabad, made an application to the Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala alleging mala fides on the part of the appellant. S. P. on 26‑1‑1976 concerning with the recommendations of the S. D. P. O. Wazirabad, who conducted the enquiry on the application of Mian Jehangir Pervaiz, awarded the appellant the punishment of forfeiture of two years' approved service. A judicial enquiry was also conducted at the same time into the aforesaid incident. The A C (G), Gujranwala who conducted the judicial enquiry exonerated the appellant. The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of S. P. on 26‑1‑1976. The appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the D. I. G.

We have heard both the parties. The two points involved are that of limitation and whether disciplinary action taken to Departmental proceedings is to be set aside as a result of the ' exoneration of the appellant to the judicial proceedings. The original order of S. P. is dated 26‑1‑1976 while the rejection by the D. L‑G. is dated 14‑4‑1976. The review petition was filed on 9‑12‑1977. The petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay. The petitioners contention is that he received the order of D. I. G. on 28‑10‑1977 when he was ill and the period should be counted from that date. He considers that this is a valid ground. In our opinion it is a fit case for condonation.

On merits the position is that in the judicial enquiry the appellant has been exonerated. The Judicial enquiry has gone into considerable detail and all the issues have been thoroughly examined regarding the conduct of the appellant in that enquiry. Even otherwise the action taken by the appellant in this case in ordering the arrest of three persons involved was fully justified. Moreover action was initiated against the appellant 0 political considerations. As a result of the foregoing it is not possible to maintain the order of S. P. and D. I. G. The appeal is accepted and the orders of S. P. of 26‑1‑1976 and D. I. G. of 14‑4‑1976 are set aside.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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