Find a Lawyer

Case No. 548/1389 of 1981, decided on 25th August, 1982.

‑‑R. 6 ‑‑ Dismissal from service‑Police Constable charged with in solent behaviour towards his superior‑Past service record com mendable‑No regular enquiry held but punished under General Police proceedings‑Held, regular enquiry was necessary‑Punishment not being in consonance with fault, reduced to withholding of two increments and civil servant re‑instated in service.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

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

Date of hearing : 25th August, 1982.

Abdul Sattar, ex‑Constable No. 1835, Police Lines. Faisalabad has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, D. I.‑G. Police, Sargodba Range, Sargodha and the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders dated 26th November, 1979, 27th January, 1981 and 3rd October, 1981 passed by respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively be set aside and the appellant be re‑instated in service from the date of suspension with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on the night between 28th and 29th October, 1979 the Inspector Muhammad Masood, S. H. O. Civil Lines, Faisalabad, while on night patrol checking duty, found the appellant slack and unattentive. He admonished him to be vigilant and alert, while on duty. The appellant took it ill and misbehaved with Inspector giving rude and insolent replies and thus created an ugly situation at Mansha Petrol Pump where he had been deployed for duty. The appellant further misbehaved with the Inspector when the latter placed him under suspension, by throwing his constabulary belt on the ground. He also grappled with another constable Nazir Ahmad No. 1366 who had advised ‑him to behave and not to be impertinent with the senior officer. A show‑cause notice under the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975, by way of General Police proceedings was served on the appellant. The reply to the show‑cause notice submitted by the appellant was considered and he was also heard in person. He was dismissed from service w.e.f. 26th November, 1979 vide Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad order, dated 26th/27th November, 1979. He made an appeal to the respondent No. 2 which was rejected vide order, dated 27th January, 1981. He made a revision petition to the Inspector‑General of Police which was also rejected vide Additional Inspector‑General of Police order dated 3rd October, 1981. Hence this appeal.

4. It has been argued by the learned counsel of the appellant that the appellant was posted for a duty which was not standing duty under the Police Rules but was only watch and ward duty to look after the petrol pump only. The appellant was alert and vigilant on duty when the Inspector of Police, Civil Lines visited the petrol pump. The Inspector of Police got annoyed, saying that the appellant was sitting and not alert. In real fact the appellant was alert on his duty, not being on standing duty and the same was explained to the Inspector. But due to this misunderstanding the Inspecting Officer took it ill and took the appellant's belt and placed him under suspension unnecessarily. No regular enquiry was held the appellant was proceeded under the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975, by way of General Police proceedings. If the regular enquiry would have been held, the matter would have been thrashed out and it would have been proved by the appellant that he was innocent in this case. Moreover two constables were deputed for this watch and ward duty of 12 hours, from 7‑00 p.m. to 6‑00 a.m., to be performed turn by turn. Thus, it was impossible that appellant could perform sentry duty for six hours, at a time. The appellant was deputed for the duty for undue long hours, the appellant was tired at the time of the visit of the Inspector. The appellant humbly narrated the above fact to the checking officer who felt annoyed and took it in sense of misbehave otherwise the appellant was humble and respectful. The appellant has excellent service record and he had earned commenda tion certificates during his tenure of service. Thus, the punishment given to him is also harsh and is not justified. The appellant's counsel concluded that on these grounds, the impugned orders be set aside and the appellant be re‑instated in service. On the other hand the learned District Attorney controverted these arguments by saying that the appel lant was a member of a disciplined force, serving in the Police Department, he should have not exhibited an insolent behaviour towards his superior. Thus, he was punished rightly for his misbehaviour and misconduct.

5. I have given anxious thought to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel of the appellant, the learned District Attorney and have also perused carefully the service record of the appellant. I have also gone through the order No. 984‑85/Steno, dated 26th/27th November, 1979 of Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad wherein it has been mentioned as follows :‑

"He has, however, stated that his duty was of long hours and could not be performed standing, which is true, but the fact remains that he was not charged of improper performance of duty when checked by the Inspector rather he was just asked to be vigilant and perform his duty diligently. No took the words of Inspector as abuse, replied in a rude manner and threw his belt away when the inspector placed him under suspension on account of his rudeness and got ready for a quarrel. The explanation submitted by him is not satisfactory. He has not added anything to his written reply already submitted by him. In view of this, his conduct is unbecoming of a Police Officer."

Thus, the appellant was not charged for improper performance of duty, but he was punished only for his rude behaviour. It is also admitted that his duty was for long hours and the fatigue of over work cannot be ruled out, specially when the appellant was checked in the mid of the night by the Inspecting Officer. I also agree with the appellant's counsel that under the circumstances of the case, a regular enquiry should have been held to provide an opportunity to the appellant to defend himself. I have checked the service record of the appellant. He joined service in November, 1975. During the years 1976 and 1977, he was given four commendation certificates with the cash rewards as well. Thus, his service record has been good. I would agree with respondents that the appellant should have behaved in a proper manner to the Inspecting Officer being a member of disciplined force, but keeping the above discussions in view and the circumstances of the appellant's present case, having good service record, I consider that the punishment is too harsh and not in consonance with the fault on the part of the appellant. . The punishment of withholding of two increments for two years without cumulative effect and censure ; would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice and I order accordingly.

6. In view of the above analysis, I accept the appeal and set aside the impugned orders by varying the punishment imposed upon the appel lant as indicated above. The appellant shall be reinstated in service but the period from the date of his dismissal to that of re‑instatement will be considered extraordinary leave without pay.

There will be no orders as to costs.

M. I Appeal partly accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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