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. 37/190 of 1976, decided on 12th September, 1979:
‑‑‑ Police Official dismissed from service on basis of strictures passed by criminal Court reaching conclusion that false case of theft registered by him‑‑Service Tribunal finding considerable discrepancies in evidence before criminal Court not supporting a firm conclusion of registration of false case by official‑‑Disciplinary action as a result of judgment of criminal Court in circumstances, held, not justified‑‑Tribunal accepting appeal and setting aside impugned dismissal order‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4.
‑‑Muhammad Bashir appellant, an A.S.I., has filed this appeal against the order of his dismissal. The facts of the case are that the appellant registered three cases regarding thefts of animals on the complaint made by the owners. Three challans were submitted in the Court but the accused were discharged and the Court passed the following stricture against the appellant.
"In view of these facts a further prosecution of this case amounts to mockery of justice and misuse of Police investigation against the innocent person. The Police Officer had exceeded the limits of law and authority. He has implicated an innocent person to show his efficiency and earn credit for hauling up a so‑called cattle‑lifter. In fact he had planted a buffalow upon the accused without owner's consent who has clearly exposed the Police Officer in his statement. In view of these facts the accused is accordingly discharged under section 255, Cr.P.C. for want of any evidence against him. The case property shall be restored to the complainant after revision, if any. Copy of the orders may be sent to S.P., Multan for necessary action in accordance with law against the Police Officer concerned."
On the basis of the decision in this case a charge‑sheet was issued to the appellant. Against the original show‑cause notice, a show‑cause notice was replaced. Ultimately S.P. dismissed the appellant from service. His appeal before the D.I.‑G. was also rejected. The contention of the appellant is that there was no good ground on the facts of the case to take action against him.
We have perused the judgment of the Court in which the strictures were passed. We find that there were considerable discrepancies in the evidence and a firm conclusion could not be arrived at that a false case was registered by the appellant. It appears to be a case of the prosecution witnesses, having been won over rather than the registration of a false case. No enmity between the appellant and the complainants or the appellant and those challaned by him has either been suggested or established. In view of this, we feel that disciplinary action taken as a result of judgment is not justified. The appeal is accepted and the order of dismissal set aside.
A.E.
Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer