Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Case No. 810/1077 of 1984, decided on 4th April, 1985.
‑‑‑R. 6(3)‑‑Police official facing criminal trial on charge of stealing a motor‑cycle but honourably acquitted‑‑Failing to explain his conduct‑ Dismissed from service but on appeal penalty converted to forfeiture of 2 years service‑‑Plea that un-owned motor‑cycle was taken into custody for which he wrote Fard Maqboozi and placed same with Police guard‑‑No explanation for not depositing said motor‑cycle in Malkhana and keeping same himself‑‑Impugned penalty, in circumstances, held, justified and unexceptionable.
Abdul Hamid Khokhar for Appellant.
A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.
‑‑Noor Ahmad has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Home Department, Lahore, the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police. Lahore Range, Lahore and the Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 5‑7‑1984, by which he has forfeited 2 years approved service, be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was dismissed from service by order, dated 2‑7‑1983, passed by Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Lahore, on the ground that he was proceeded against in case F.I.R. No. 179/82 under section 379, P.P.C., ‑P.S. Mannawan, as it was found that he had stolen a motor‑cycle from near Ice Factory, G.T. Road, Lahore, about 4 months back. The said motor cycle was recovered by the Investigating Agency from the appellant. He was arrested in the said case and was also placed under suspension w.e.f. 24‑4‑1983. The appellant was honourably acquitted in the said case by the trial Court but as he failed to explain his conduct he was dismissed by the order of the Superintendent of Police, Headquarters. Lahore. He filed appeal before the D.I.‑G. Police, Lahore Range, Lahore, who converted the penalty of dismissal into forfeiture of two years of approved service with cumulative effect, and re‑instated him in service, vide order, dated 13‑6‑1984. He filed representation /appeal to the learned I.G Police, as no response was forthcoming to the said appeal and he has filed this appeal after waiting for the said statutory period.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant took an un-owned motor‑cycle on 13‑4‑1983 in his custody and kept in guard for which he wrote Fard Maqboozgi on the same day and entered as Report No. 8 on the same day in Roznamcha of Police Guard, Telephone Exchange, Garden Town, Lahore, but it was wrongly attributed that the same was stolen by the appellant. It has been argued that the appellant has been acquitted, therefore, the order of D.I.G. Police was uncalled for.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the D.I.G. Police was fully justified to impose penalty on him when it was found that the appellant kept the said motor‑cycle in his possession from 13‑4‑1983 to 24‑4‑1983, without possessing any licence for the same which was a misconduct on his part. He has prayed that the appeal be dismissed. .
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the appellant has been unable to controvert the said charge of misconduct as he never deposited the said motor‑cycle in Malkhana, for which he was under obligation to do and instead kept the same with himself. The plea of the appellant that the said motor‑cycle was deposited by him in the Police Guard is hardly convincing as the appellant failed to bring the matter to the notice of his superiors and the only course open to him was to deposit the same in Malkhana and nowhere else.
8. In view of the above, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned D.I.G. Police, Lahore which is fully justified and unexceptional. The appeal is dismissed as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs.
A.E.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer