Find a Lawyer

Case No. 61/263 of 1985, decided on 25^th February, 1986.

S. 4--Disciplinary ac-.ion- -Police hub-inspector charged for inefficiency and misconduct on account of inordinate delay, in submission of necessary report--Charge proved--Penalty of censure imposed-Tribunal, in circumstances taking view that accused already treated leniently hence interference refused.

Tallat Farooq Shaikh for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

. --Muhammad Baqer, Sub-Inspector has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the respondents as detailed above.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the order passed by the Inspector-General of Police., Punjab, Lahore, dated 6-1-1985 conveyed to the appellant on 12--1-1985 upholding the order of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Faisalabad Range and Superintendent of Police, Sargodha, date4i 4-4-1982 be set aside, being illegal arid against the facts on record.

3. Brief facts' of the case are that a show-cause notice was served upon the appellant as detailed below:-

"Letter Endorsement No. 30357/C, dated 24-10-1981 of the Deputy Muhammad Baqer v. Inspector-General of Police (Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Member)

Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha was received in S.P. Office, Sargodha on 24-10-1981, and its copy was furnished to Inspector C.I.A., Sargodha vide No. 1848/5, dated 25-10-1981 regarding investigation of the case F.I.R. No. 476, dated 18-11-1980 under section 379, P.P.C. P.S. Sadar, Sargodha. Letter No. 1848/5, dated 25-10-1981 was marked by you S.I. Baqer Ali to A.S.I. Muhammad Akram of C.I.A. on 31-10-1981. A.S.I. Muhammad Akram had submitted interim report in this respect, but you Baqer Ali S.I. while posted, as S.I. C.I.A. did not pursue the matter seriously, which caused inordinate delay in the submission of reply in time. D.S.P., Bhalwal was also directed to probe into the matter who also held you responsible for the delay. This constitutes misconduct and inefficiency on your part."

The appellant submitted a reply to this show-cause notice which was not found satisfactory and taking a lenient view, the appellant was awarded a penalty of 'Censure' vide order, dated 4-4-1982 of the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha. The appellant made an appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad, which was rejected. The appellant made a revision petition to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, which was also rejected vide his order, dated 6-1-1985. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties i.e., Mr. Taallat Farooq Sheikh, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney, assisted by the representative of the respondents.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was temporarily posted in C.I.A. Staff Sargodha. S.I. Ali Ahmad, Senior to appellant was already working there for the last 6 months who was virtually officiating as Inspector C.I.A. being the officer senior in service. The appellant had not been posted as Incharge C.I.A. Staff, Sargodha through any order. Thus, it was not the responsibility of the appellant to persue the matter regarding submission of reply to the Range Office, Sargodha. In this way, the appellant could not be held responsible for the delay so attributed to him and the appellant has been punished arbitrarily. Concluding his arguments it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is not guilty of any misconduct /inefficiency and has been punished arbitrarily. He has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside.

6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has rebutted the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and has also relied on the para-wise comments submitted by the respondents. He has also referred to the order of the Additional Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore whereby the representation-cum-review was so rejected. The learned District Attorney has submitted that the perusal of the record shows that the appellant was guilty of misconduct/ inefficiency for not pursuing the matter seriously and he was responsible for inordinate delay in submission of the reply to the Range Office, Sargodha. This was also proved through a probe made by the D.S.P., Bhalwal. It has also been pointed out by the learned District Attorney that a lenient view has already been taken and the appellant was only awarded a penalty of 'Censure' for misconduct and thus he should not have any grievance against the impugned orders which are lawful and valid orders.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case very carefully. We have also gone through the documents which were produced by the' respondents at the time of arguments and consider that the appellant was correctly held responsible for the inordinate delay in the submission of the reply to the Range Office, Sargodha. This inefficiency/misconduct was also proved by the D.S.P., Bhalwal, who was directed. to probe into the matter. We also find that already a lenient view has been taken in this case of the appellant by the respondents.

8. The result of the analysis of the case is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.

A.E. 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.