Find a Lawyer

Case No. 53/1128 of 1981, decided on 27th September, 1982.

‑‑‑‑ R. 6(2)‑Show‑cause notice‑Sub‑Inspector of Police adversely commented upon for some lapses in Inspection Report of Superin tendent of Police‑Explanation obtained and personal hearing afforded in Orderly Room‑Awarded penalty of censure‑Objection that penalty order without show‑cause notice not valid‑Rejected -Show‑cause notice, in circumstances, held, not a must‑Penalty found in consonance of lapses‑Interference refused by Service Tribunal‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

Masud Ahmad Javed, Sub -Inspector, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Superintendent of Police, Sahiwals D.I.‑G. Police, Multan Range, Multan and I.‑G. Police, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 19th September, 1979, 18th September, 1979 and final order dated 6th December, 1980/14th December, 1980, awarding censure to the appellant in all these three cases, be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No. 1 inspected Police Station Ghazi Abad and recorded inspection report for the first and second quarters of the year 1977. As the appellant was S.H.O. of the Police Station, he was supplied with three extracts dated 29th May, 1978, Annexures A, B & C out of the said Inspection Report for his explana tion. The appellant was called in the Orderly Room as a result of which a censure was awarded to him vide order dated 22nd July, 1979. The appellant filed representation Annexure E to Respondent No. 2. In this connection he was called for personal hearing in Orderly Room and was informed that no appeal lay against the order of censure, therefore, the same censure was confirmed. The appellant made a representation in which he challenged the said order alongwith two other orders of similar nature before Respondent No. 3, which remained undecided. Hence this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the said censure are unwarranted for the following reasons :‑

(1) No show‑cause notice was issued to the appellant as required under the rules.

(2) The extract Annexure A related to a period when political agita tion was in full swing thus occupying the entire police forces. Moreover the appellant had remained on medical leave for which he remained incapacitated.

(3) That the charge with regard to 6 B. Cs. in Bundle 'A' was un founded as out of them one was in Jail and rest was kept under close watch and none was allowed to go out of sight.

5. On the other hand learned District Attorney has fully defended the imposition of censure as according to him the same were justified keeping in view the performance of the appellant.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by both the parties and find that the explanation of the appellant was called vide Annexures A, B, C as a result of inspection conducted by S. P., Sahiwal of Police Station Ghazi Abad, of which the appellant was Incharge. The first explanation was called from the appellant with regard to the fact that no P. C. Roll was received after 11th August. 1973, in this Police Station while there were 6 B. Cs. in Bundle 'A' under surveillance out of them one was in jail. The second explanation was based on inspection note of S. P. in which it was found that the, performance of the appellant both as S. H.O. and S.P.O. was poor and the crimes had increased manifold. Similarly Annexure C' pertained to case of burglary which according to the Inspection note were conducted in haphazard, manner and the performance under the said head was hopeless. Mr. Muhammad Anwar Khan S. P., Sahiwal has fully discuss ed these three beads of lapses which were pointed out by Qazi Safdar Hussain his predecessor in his inspection note of the said Police Station for which the appellant was Incharge. The appellant was personally heard and his explanation was fully taken into consideration by the said S. I. and after attending to all pros and cons of the case, he came to the conclusion that the explanation so submitted by the appellant were not satisfactory. According to his order he took a lensent view and awarded the appellant censures for all the three lapses. In accordance with the Police (E & D) Rules the procedure adopted in this case cannot be declared as illegal as rule 6(2) provides that the delinquent is required to be summoned in the Orderly Room and after hearing in person, order can be passed. In this case also appellant was summoned to the Orderly Room. He was apprised of the charges and explanation was duly considered. When it was found unsatisfactory, minor penalty of censure was administered on him so that he should remain vigilent, in future and improve his conduct. In view of above, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that a show‑cause notice in this case was must, is without any force.

7. We have also perused the record of this case and have satisfied ourselves that the observations in the Inspection Note were neither vague in nature nor imaginary. These explanations were the result of docu mentary evidence on the record in the Police Station and the action in this regard was called for in view of the said Inspection Note.

8. We have satisfied ourselves that the procedure adopted in the case of the appellant was in accordance with the rules laid down in this behalf and the minor penalty of censure so awarded to him was fully ins consonance for the lapse which he committed during the course of S.H.O B The result is we do not find any justification to interfere with the well-considered order of S. P. Sahiwal and proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merits. However, there will be no order as to costs.

Appeal 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.