We have recently received a lot of queries from the general public, especially members of the Sindh Police regarding major and minor penalties imposed upon them and possible remedies. We feel that a perusal of the reported cases mentioned below would be useful to their cause, especially where they have been dismissed or penalized without a proper inquiry.In addition to Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988 they should also pay attention to the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance (IX of 2000), Police Rules 1934, and Sindh Service Tribunal Act (XV of 1973) as well the relevant constitutional provisions as discussed below in the reported cases.
If you have any questions kindly contact us at [email protected]
Challenging Compulsory Retirement: Muhammad Urs vs. Government of Sindh
Citation: 2014 PLC(CS) 1306 – Karachi High Court Sindh
In the case of Muhammad Urs vs. the Government of Sindh through Home Secretary, the petitioner, Muhammad Urs, a long-serving member of the police department with 36 years of service, found himself facing compulsory retirement due to his prolonged absence without leave. This action was taken in accordance with Rule 6(3)(b)(i) of the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988. The core issue at hand was the finality of this order and the scope of revisional jurisdiction.
Initially, the Appellate authority accepted Muhammad Urs’s appeal, effectively overturning the penalty of compulsory retirement. The appeal authority took the extraordinary step of converting his absence without leave into medical leave. However, this decision was challenged by the authorities who sought revision of the order. They declined to implement the order passed in the appellate jurisdiction, leading to a legal dispute.
The central legal question revolved around whether the Appellate authority’s decision was final or subject to further revision. While it is established that the order of the Appellate authority could be subject to revision as per Rule 16.32 of the Police Rules, 1934, it was crucial to note that this revisionary power was available only to the petitioner, Muhammad Urs, and not to the department itself. Furthermore, any revision could only be preferred to the authority immediately superior to the prescribed Appellate authority.
The High Court made a significant determination that the Appellate authority was, in fact, the highest authority within the police department. Consequently, no revision could be preferred in this matter, not even by the petitioner himself. The order passed by the Appellate authority was legally sound, and its finality was beyond question. Whether this order was correct or not could only be challenged through legal channels, rather than seeking clarification or reconsideration by the department.
The Appellate authority’s decision was unambiguous in favor of the petitioner, Muhammad Urs. It set aside the order of compulsory retirement and unequivocally treated the entire period of absence as leave on medical grounds. This made the Appellate authority functus officio, meaning that no further clarification or modification of the order was permissible under the law.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of Muhammad Urs, directing the authorities to implement the Appellate authority’s order in letter and spirit. The High Court upheld the decision to treat the entire period of absence as leave with pay on medical grounds. As a result, the petition was allowed accordingly, ensuring justice for Muhammad Urs in this case of compulsory retirement from the police department.
Unjust Dismissal: Abdul Ghaffar vs. Superintendent of Police, South Zone, Karachi
Citation: 2011 PLC(CS) 387 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Abdul Ghaffar vs. Superintendent of Police, South Zone, Karachi, the appellant, Abdul Ghaffar, found himself facing a grave allegation of dismissal from service. The reason for his dismissal was attributed to his prolonged absence from duty without prior permission or approval. This case revolved around the interpretation of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance (IX of 2000), specifically Sections 3, 5, 6, 10, and 11.
The crux of the matter lay in the fact that the leave period of the appellant had already been regularized by treating it as leave without pay. In this context, the central legal issue was whether the appellant’s continued absence could legitimately serve as a ground for imposing the major penalty of dismissal from service. This raised concerns about the principle of double jeopardy, which is not permissible under the law.
The notion of double jeopardy refers to subjecting an individual to multiple punishments for the same offense. In the case of Abdul Ghaffar, he had already faced the consequences of his absence by having his leave period treated as leave without pay. Consequently, imposing the additional penalty of dismissal from service for the same absence was legally questionable.
Furthermore, even the period during which Abdul Ghaffar remained under suspension had been treated as leave without pay. This underscored the fact that his absence had already been addressed and penalized through appropriate measures, making his dismissal from service disproportionate and unjust.
In conclusion, the case of Abdul Ghaffar vs. Superintendent of Police, South Zone, Karachi, highlighted the importance of adhering to legal principles, particularly the prohibition against double jeopardy. The dismissal from service based on the appellant’s absence was found to be unjustifiable in light of the prior penalties imposed. This case serves as a reminder of the need for fair and proportional actions in matters of employment discipline and the importance of upholding legal principles in such cases.
Due Process Violation: Abdul Ghaffar vs. Superintendent of Police, South Zone, Karachi
Citation: 2011 PLC(CS) 387 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Abdul Ghaffar vs. Superintendent of Police, South Zone, Karachi, the appellant, Abdul Ghaffar, faced the serious consequence of dismissal from service. This case centered on the alleged violation of due process in the inquiry proceedings conducted under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance (IX of 2000), particularly Sections 3, 5, 6, and 7.
The crucial aspect of the case was the manner in which the inquiry was conducted. It was noted that the inquiry in this case was said to have been conducted by the Superintendent of Police, who subsequently submitted his report. This report served as the basis for the rejection of the departmental appeal filed by Abdul Ghaffar. However, a critical deficiency emerged in the proceedings.
There was no record to indicate that Abdul Ghaffar, the employee who faced dismissal from service, was ever called to participate in the inquiry. Furthermore, there was no evidence to suggest that a copy of the inquiry report was supplied to him. This lack of participation and transparency in the inquiry process raised significant concerns regarding due process.
The absence of the appellant’s involvement in the inquiry process was a clear violation of his right to a fair and just procedure. Due process principles dictate that an individual facing disciplinary action should be provided an opportunity to participate in the proceedings, present their defense, and have access to relevant documents and reports. In this case, the inquiry, at most, could be termed as a fact-finding inquiry, lacking the legal value required for imposing any form of penalty.
In conclusion, the case of Abdul Ghaffar vs. Superintendent of Police, South Zone, Karachi, highlighted a fundamental violation of due process in the inquiry proceedings. The appellant’s lack of participation and access to the inquiry report rendered any penalty imposed as legally untenable. This case underscores the importance of upholding the principles of natural justice and due process in all disciplinary actions, including those involving the dismissal from service.
Violation of Natural Justice: Abdul Ghaffar vs. Superintendent of Police, South Zone, Karachi
Citation: 2011 PLC(CS) 387 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Abdul Ghaffar vs. Superintendent of Police, South Zone, Karachi, a significant issue of procedural irregularity and a blatant violation of principles of natural justice emerged. The appellant, Abdul Ghaffar, faced the severe penalty of dismissal from service under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance (IX of 2000), with reference to Sections 3, 5, 6, and 11, as well as the Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), Section 4.
The crux of the case lay in the imposition of the major penalty of dismissal from service on Abdul Ghaffar. This penalty was imposed on the appellant after issuing him a show-cause notice, alleging his involvement in criminal cases. However, the critical issue arose when it was revealed that Abdul Ghaffar was subsequently acquitted of the criminal charges against him by a court of competent jurisdiction. The authority, instead of awaiting the outcome of these criminal cases, proceeded with the dismissal from service.
This situation presented two viable options for the authority. First, it could have ordered a regular departmental inquiry in accordance with the law. Alternatively, it could have chosen to wait for the final outcome of the criminal cases pending in the court of law. However, the authority opted for neither of these courses of action. Notably, the show-cause notice did not provide reasons for dispensing with a regular inquiry.
The action of the authority in awarding the major penalty of dismissal from service, in these circumstances, amounted to a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The dismissal was based on allegations of a serious nature, and it was incumbent upon the authority to follow due process. Since Abdul Ghaffar had already been acquitted of the criminal charges against him, the very basis on which the order of dismissal from service was predicated would cease to exist. Consequently, the order of dismissal itself became ineffective and liable to be set aside.
Additionally, it was observed that the proceedings against the appellant were initiated under the provisions of the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988, at a time when the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000, had already been promulgated. According to Section 11 of the Ordinance, it had overriding effect, rendering the entire disciplinary proceedings against Abdul Ghaffar legally flawed and unsustainable.
In conclusion, the case of Abdul Ghaffar vs. Superintendent of Police, South Zone, Karachi, underscored the paramount importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary actions. The dismissal from service, based on unproven criminal allegations without due process, was found to be in violation of these principles and was consequently deemed ineffective. This case serves as a reminder of the necessity of fair and lawful procedures in employment-related matters.
Inefficiency in Investigation: Inspector Irshad Ahmed Sohail vs. Capital City Police Officer/Additional Inspector General of Police Karachi
Citation: 2006 PLC(CS) 852 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Inspector Irshad Ahmed Sohail vs. Capital City Police Officer/Additional Inspector General of Police Karachi, the appellant, Inspector Irshad Ahmed Sohail, faced disciplinary action in the form of a major penalty, specifically the reduction in rank from Inspector to Sub-Inspector. This case delved into the allegations of inefficient investigation, negligence, and carelessness during the appellant’s tenure as Inspector/Incharge of Investigation.
The core issue in this case revolved around the appellant’s handling of a high-profile criminal case. He was charged with failing to pursue the case successfully due to his defective investigation, lack of supervision, and lack of interest. As a result of his cursory investigation, the accused in the case were acquitted. The appellant was afforded the opportunity of a personal hearing but failed to convince the Deputy Inspector General of Police, leading to the imposition of the major penalty of rank reduction.
The central argument presented in the case was that any lapse, whether factual or legal, committed by the appellant due to his inefficiency, negligence, or carelessness, could be attributed solely to him. The appellant’s negligence and inefficiency were evident in the fact that he did not even bother to verify the parentage of the sole independent and star witness of the prosecution. These lapses during the investigation underscored the appellant’s negligence.
The Service Tribunal ultimately determined that the appellant had been rightly proceeded against departmentally, and the penalty of reduction in rank was deemed just and appropriate. However, it was noted that the order did not specify a specific period for the reduction in rank. Consequently, the Service Tribunal upheld the penalty but directed that the period of reduction in rank would be for 2 years from the date of the original impugned order.
In conclusion, the case of Inspector Irshad Ahmed Sohail vs. Capital City Police Officer/Additional Inspector General of Police Karachi highlighted the importance of diligence, competence, and accountability in the investigation of criminal cases. The appellant’s failure to conduct a thorough and competent investigation resulted in a major penalty of rank reduction, which was upheld by the Service Tribunal with a specified period for the reduction. This case serves as a reminder of the stringent standards expected of law enforcement officers in their duties.
Limitations on Deputy Inspector-General’s Authority: Inspector-General of Police, Sindh vs. Habibur Rehman Abro
Citation: 2005 PLC(CS) 554 – Supreme Court
In the case of Inspector-General of Police, Sindh vs. Habibur Rehman Abro, a critical issue arose concerning the authority of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police to reverse findings in a case of alleged misconduct. The appellant in this case, the Inspector-General of Police, Sindh, had initiated disciplinary proceedings against a police officer, Habibur Rehman Abro, on charges of misconduct. An inquiry was conducted, and initially, the Senior Superintendent of Police found the officer innocent, exonerating him.
However, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police disagreed with the Senior Superintendent’s findings and issued a notice, invoking Rule 12 of the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988. This notice required the official to show cause as to why the penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed upon him. Subsequently, the Deputy Inspector-General found the official guilty of the charges and awarded the penalty of forfeiture of two years of approved service.
The official challenged this decision before the Service Tribunal after his departmental appeal was rejected. The Service Tribunal ruled in favor of the official, striking down the impugned order. The Tribunal’s reasoning was based on a comparison between Rule 16.28 of the Police Rules, 1934, and Rule 12 of the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988. The Tribunal found that, due to a material change in the latest Rules, the Deputy Inspector-General was no longer competent to call for records of a decided case and inflict punishment in a case where exoneration had been previously granted.
Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized that under the latest Rules, the appellate or revisional authorities were no longer vested with the power to alter a finding of exoneration into a finding of guilt. Therefore, the Deputy Inspector-General could not convert a finding of “not guilty” into “guilty” or alter a finding of ‘exoneration’ into “proved guilty.”
The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the rules and procedures governing disciplinary actions. The case underscored the limitations on the authority of the Deputy Inspector-General and the need to follow the appropriate legal procedures when determining the guilt or innocence of a police officer facing disciplinary action. As no other grounds were raised to support the petition, it was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Service Tribunal.
Legal Precedent: Inspector-General of Police, Sindh vs. Habibur Rehman Abro and Aftab Ahmed Memon vs. Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Hyderabad
Citation:
- 2005 SCMR 654 – Supreme Court (Inspector-General of Police, Sindh vs. Habibur Rehman Abro)
- 2005 PLC(CS) 1356 – Service Tribunal Sindh (Aftab Ahmed Memon vs. Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Hyderabad)
In these two cases, we encounter important legal discussions regarding disciplinary actions against police officers.
1. Inspector-General of Police, Sindh vs. Habibur Rehman Abro:
In this case, the appellant, Inspector-General of Police, Sindh, initiated disciplinary proceedings against a police officer, Habibur Rehman Abro, who was initially found innocent by the Senior Superintendent of Police and exonerated. However, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police disagreed with these findings and issued a notice under Rule 12 of the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988, to show cause as to why the penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed upon him.
The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case affirmed the decision of the Service Tribunal, which had struck down the impugned order. The Tribunal’s ruling was based on a comparison between Rule 16.28 of the Police Rules, 1934, and Rule 12 of the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988. It emphasized that, due to a material change in the latest Rules, the Deputy Inspector-General was not competent to call for records of a decided case and inflict punishment in a case where exoneration had been previously granted. The judgment highlighted the limitations on the authority of the Deputy Inspector-General and the necessity of following proper legal procedures in disciplinary actions.
2. Aftab Ahmed Memon vs. Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Hyderabad:
In this case, the appellant, Aftab Ahmed Memon, challenged his dismissal from service. The impugned order contained observations regarding his general bad reputation, although these observations were not mentioned in the charge-sheet and the statement of allegations attached thereto. The Service Tribunal found these observations problematic and set aside the impugned order, directing the reinstatement of the appellant in service. The key issue here was the validity of imposing a major penalty, such as dismissal, based on observations of general bad reputation without solid proof.
These two cases collectively underscore the importance of adhering to established rules and procedures in disciplinary actions against civil servants, particularly police officers. They emphasize the need for clear and legally sound justifications for imposing major penalties and highlight the limitations on the authority of higher-ranking officers to alter findings of exoneration.
Leniency in Disciplinary Action: Muhammad Soomar Chandio vs. Inspector General of Police, Central Police Office, Sindh, Karachi, and Others
Citation: 2005 PLC(CS) 224 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Muhammad Soomar Chandio vs. Inspector General of Police, Central Police Office, Sindh, Karachi, and Others, the appellant, Muhammad Soomar Chandio, faced disciplinary action in the form of a major punishment involving the forfeiture of approved service for two years. The basis for this action was his submission of an application for transfer from Sindh Reserved Police to Regular Police directly to the Home Secretary, which was deemed a violation of rules.
The essential facts of this case revolved around the appellant’s efforts to secure a transfer from Sindh Reserved Police to Regular Police. While his name was not included in the list of police officers transferred as per the established policy, he began submitting applications to the relevant authorities in pursuit of better career prospects. Frustrated by the lack of response to his applications, he ultimately approached the highest authority, the Home Secretary.
It was noted that the Service Conduct Rules were fully applicable to the appellant as a government servant, and he was expected to adhere to them meticulously. The appellant’s act of submitting his application/appeal directly to a higher authority did constitute a violation of these rules. However, it was determined that this act could be categorized as a “mere irregularity” on his part, and it did not amount to public misconduct. Additionally, there was no evidence of guilty intention on the part of the appellant.
Considering the appellant’s 14 years of unblemished service record and recognizing that this was his first lapse, the punishment imposed on him was deemed excessively harsh and disproportionate to the nature of his transgression. Consequently, the Service Tribunal decided to take a lenient view of the appellant’s mistake/lapse and modified the punishment. Instead of the initial forfeiture of approved service for two years, the punishment was converted to “stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect.”
In conclusion, the case of Muhammad Soomar Chandio vs. Inspector General of Police, Central Police Office, Sindh, Karachi, and Others, highlights the principle of proportionality in disciplinary actions. It underscores the importance of aligning the severity of penalties with the nature and gravity of the transgression and taking into account the individual’s service record and intent. In this case, leniency prevailed in the interest of justice, resulting in a more reasonable and balanced disciplinary outcome.
Unwarranted Dismissal: Noor Alam vs. Inspector-General of Police, Sindh Karachi
Citation: 2005 PLC(CS) 411 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Noor Alam vs. Inspector-General of Police, Sindh Karachi, the appellant, Noor Alam, who served as a constable, faced a severe disciplinary action in the form of dismissal from service. The charges against him included receiving a bribe and registering a false case against an individual.
The critical issue in this case centered around the procedural fairness and the violation of the appellant’s right to due process. Noor Alam was served with a charge-sheet, which required him to submit his reply within seven days. However, without waiting for the appellant’s response, the authority dismissed him from service on the very next day after serving the charge-sheet.
This swift dismissal raised concerns about whether Noor Alam was afforded an adequate opportunity to show cause and defend himself. It was argued that the dismissal was carried out under the purported exercise of powers under Rule 9(b) of the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988. However, it was noted that the provisions of Rule 9(b) could only be invoked if it was not reasonably practicable to give the accused an opportunity to show cause. In this case, it was deemed practicable to provide Noor Alam with an opportunity to present his defense, as he had previously been served with a show-cause notice in earlier proceedings against him.
Furthermore, it was observed that the impugned dismissal order included two additional allegations not mentioned in the initial show-cause notice. This inconsistency raised questions about the fairness of the proceedings.
In light of these factors, the Service Tribunal determined that the dismissal order against Noor Alam was unwarranted and uncalled for. It was noted that two other constables who faced similar charges had already been exonerated and reinstated in service. Given the identical nature of Noor Alam’s case, he was entitled to the same relief and treatment.
Consequently, the orders dismissing Noor Alam from service were set aside, and he was directed to be reinstated in service. This case underscores the fundamental importance of adhering to due process and affording individuals a fair opportunity to defend themselves in disciplinary proceedings, particularly in cases involving severe penalties such as dismissal from service.
Unjust Dismissal and Appeal Jurisdiction: Bashir Ahmad Khooharo vs. Inspector-General of Police, Sindh Central Police Office, Karachi, and Others
Citation: 2004 PLC(CS) 1204 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Bashir Ahmad Khooharo vs. Inspector-General of Police, Sindh Central Police Office, Karachi, and Others, the appellant, Bashir Ahmad Khooharo, who served as a Sub-Inspector of Police, faced a dismissal from service on certain allegations. However, the dismissal occurred without holding any formal inquiry, despite the serious nature of the allegations.
The central issue in this case was the procedural fairness surrounding the dismissal. The appellant vehemently denied the allegations against him, yet no regular inquiry was conducted to establish his guilt. Instead, the major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed based solely on the allegations contained in the show-cause notice.
The Service Tribunal found that dismissing an employee from service without conducting a proper inquiry, especially in cases involving serious allegations, was unjustifiable. It was emphasized that the award of a major penalty without due process, such as a formal inquiry, could not be sustained.
Regarding the order of reversion mentioned in the case, the Service Tribunal noted that there was nothing on record to indicate whether this order had been challenged by the employee before the Departmental Appellate Authority prior to approaching the Service Tribunal. In the absence of a Departmental appeal, the appeal against the reversion order was deemed not maintainable before the Service Tribunal.
Consequently, the Service Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal from service passed against Bashir Ahmad Khooharo and directed his reinstatement in service. This case underscores the fundamental principle of due process in employment-related disciplinary actions and the importance of adhering to established procedures, particularly when imposing major penalties such as dismissal.
Consistency in Reinstatement: Senior Superintendent of Police, Dadu vs. Makhdoom Ayaz Ahmed Siddiqui
Citation: 2004 PLC(CS) 569 – Supreme Court
In the case of Senior Superintendent of Police, Dadu vs. Makhdoom Ayaz Ahmed Siddiqui, the appellant, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dadu, challenged the decision of the Service Tribunal, which had accepted the appeal of a civil servant, Makhdoom Ayaz Ahmed Siddiqui, and reinstated him in service.
The central issue in this case revolved around the validity of the Service Tribunal’s decision to reinstate Makhdoom Ayaz Ahmed Siddiqui. It was noted that the services of other colleagues of Siddiqui had been terminated, and their orders of reinstatement passed by the Service Tribunal had been upheld by the Supreme Court. Siddiqui’s case was considered to be one of these similar cases.
The Supreme Court, in this instance, dismissed the petition filed by the authority and refused to grant leave to appeal. This decision underscored the importance of consistency in matters of reinstatement and emphasized that civil servants with similar circumstances and cases should be treated uniformly.
The case highlighted the principle that when a Service Tribunal makes a decision to reinstate a civil servant and such decisions are upheld by the Supreme Court in similar cases, it is crucial to maintain this consistency in the interest of fairness and justice.
In summary, the case of Senior Superintendent of Police, Dadu vs. Makhdoom Ayaz Ahmed Siddiqui, reinforces the principle of equal treatment and consistency in reinstatement decisions for civil servants facing similar circumstances and cases, as established by the Service Tribunal and upheld by the Supreme Court.
Unjust Compulsory Retirement: Mirza Khan vs. Government of Sindh and Others
Citation: 2004 PLC(CS) 1158 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Mirza Khan vs. Government of Sindh through its Home Secretary and Others, the appellant, Mirza Khan, faced a major penalty of compulsory retirement on the charge of accepting illegal gratification. This penalty was imposed after serving him with a show-cause notice, but without conducting any formal inquiry.
The primary issue at the heart of this case was the fairness of the disciplinary process leading to the compulsory retirement of Mirza Khan. The charge of accepting illegal gratification was a serious one and required a thorough investigation. However, instead of conducting a proper inquiry, a shortcut method of summary procedure was employed, which was found to be legally unsustainable.
It was emphasized that when a charge against an employee is based on a disputed question of fact, denying that employee a regular inquiry is unjust. Disputed factual matters cannot be resolved without the opportunity to record evidence and provide the parties with the chance to cross-examine witnesses. In situations where findings of fact are recorded without the benefit of such a process, those findings would be based on conjecture and would lack evidentiary value, making them insufficient to justify the imposition of any punishment on the employee in question.
As a result, the order passed against Mirza Khan, which mandated his compulsory retirement, was set aside. This case underscores the principle that disciplinary actions against employees, especially major penalties like compulsory retirement, must adhere to due process and provide a fair opportunity for the employee to present their case and challenge the allegations through a proper inquiry when factual disputes are involved.
Summary Dismissal for Misconduct: Muhran Ali vs. Inspector-General Sindh, Police Department, Karachi
Citation: 2003 PLC(CS) 661 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Muhran Ali vs. Inspector-General Sindh, Police Department, Karachi, the appellant, Muhran Ali, a police constable, was dismissed from service without the issuance of a show-cause notice and without the conduct of a departmental inquiry. The dismissal was based on an allegation that Muhran Ali, along with another constable, had snatched a certain amount from a complainant.
The central issue in this case was the validity of the summary dismissal of Muhran Ali. It was argued that the order of dismissal was passed summarily without the necessary procedural steps of issuing a show-cause notice and conducting an inquiry.
It was noted that Muhran Ali had verbally accepted his guilt before the highest-ranking officer in the presence of the complainant and the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) concerned. Additionally, Muhran Ali did not allege any enmity or prejudice against the authorities.
The Service Tribunal considered that summary proceedings were provided under the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988, and that there were instances where, even in the absence of formal show-cause notices and inquiries, justice could be served promptly and efficiently. Moreover, the tribunal emphasized that technicalities should not obstruct the process of justice, especially when addressing malpractices committed by civil servants, as these actions needed to be curbed in the larger public interest.
Given these circumstances, the tribunal concluded that Muhran Ali, who did not deserve any leniency due to his admitted guilt, was rightly dismissed from service. This case illustrates that in cases of clear misconduct where guilt is openly acknowledged, the authorities may have the discretion to employ summary procedures to ensure swift justice and maintain discipline within the civil service.
Discharge from Service Due to Prolonged Absence: Ashfaq Ali vs. Principal Police Training Centre, Saeedabad Karachi
Citation: 2002 PLC(CS) 1534 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Ashfaq Ali vs. Principal Police Training Centre, Saeedabad Karachi, the appellant, Ashfaq Ali, was appointed as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and was sent for training during the mandatory probationary period. However, during the course of his training, he remained absent for a total period of 118 days without providing any intimation or justification for his absence. As a result of his prolonged and unexplained absence, he was discharged from service.
The central issue in this case was whether the discharge from service was justified given the extended period of unauthorized absence by Ashfaq Ali during his training.
The Service Tribunal considered that Ashfaq Ali’s choice to remain absent for a substantial period of 118 days during his training was a clear violation of the discipline expected of a police officer. Such prolonged absence without any valid reason undermined his status as part of the disciplined police force.
It was determined that the action taken against Ashfaq Ali by the Competent Authority was in accordance with the rules governing his service. Given the seriousness of his absence and the importance of maintaining discipline within the police department, the discharge from service was deemed justified.
This case highlights the importance of adhering to discipline and attendance requirements, especially during training periods, for individuals aspiring to be part of law enforcement agencies like the police. Prolonged and unexplained absences can have significant consequences, including the possibility of discharge from service, as demonstrated in this case.
Unjust Dismissal for Criminal Case: Shafqat Mahmood vs. Inspector-General of Police
Citation: 2002 PLC(CS) 1621 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Shafqat Mahmood vs. Inspector-General of Police, the appellant, Shafqat Mahmood, faced dismissal from service on the grounds of a registered criminal case against him. He was served with a show-cause notice but was dismissed without a formal inquiry, solely based on the report of a fact-finding Inquiry Committee. It’s worth noting that the report of the fact-finding Committee was derived from a police investigation in which Shafqat Mahmood was not allowed to participate.
The central issue in this case revolved around the fairness of Shafqat Mahmood’s dismissal from service. The tribunal determined that the inquiry conducted by the fact-finding Committee did not meet the standards of a regular inquiry as envisaged under the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988. Importantly, Shafqat Mahmood had been acquitted of the charges against him by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Despite the court’s verdict, the authorities had ignored the court’s findings and proceeded to dismiss Shafqat Mahmood based on the investigation, which had already been discredited by the court.
The tribunal emphasized that the judgment of the court should have been given due consideration when evaluating the departmental appeal of Shafqat Mahmood. Dismissing a civil servant from service solely based on an investigation that had been contradicted by a court’s verdict was deemed unjust.
As a result, the order dismissing Shafqat Mahmood from service was set aside, and the tribunal directed his reinstatement in service from the date of his dismissal. This case underscores the importance of upholding principles of fairness and respecting the findings of a competent court when making disciplinary decisions against civil servants.
Unjust Dismissal Without Proper Inquiry: Nadeem Ahmed Khanzada vs. Inspector-General of Police
Citation: 2002 PLC(CS) 1324 – Karachi High Court Sindh
In the case of Nadeem Ahmed Khanzada vs. Inspector-General of Police, the appellant, Nadeem Ahmed Khanzada, faced dismissal from service based on serious allegations. He was issued a show-cause notice but was dismissed without the conduct of any formal inquiry into the allegations.
The key issue in this case was the fairness of Nadeem Ahmed Khanzada’s dismissal. Despite his denial of the allegations, the authorities opted to dismiss him from service without conducting a comprehensive inquiry. This approach was seen as haphazard and a shortcut method that did not align with legal requirements.
While the allegations against Nadeem Ahmed Khanzada were indeed of a serious nature, the authorities failed to establish their validity through reliable evidence. The absence of a proper inquiry, especially when the civil servant had denied the allegations, was deemed unjust.
The court emphasized that if allegations against a civil servant were serious and the individual denied them, a regular inquiry must be conducted, and findings of fact should be based on the examination of witnesses in support of the charges. In this case, the authority’s decision to dispense with the inquiry was found to be unlawful.
As a result, the court set aside the order of dismissal from service passed by the authority against Nadeem Ahmed Khanzada and directed his reinstatement in service. This case underscores the importance of adhering to due process and conducting thorough inquiries when serious allegations are involved, especially when the accused party denies the charges.
Unauthorized Reduction in Rank: Mir Ahmad Chandio vs. The Inspector-General of Police
Citation: 2001 PLC(CS) 1097 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Mir Ahmad Chandio vs. The Inspector-General of Police, the appellant, Mir Ahmad Chandio, faced a reduction in rank as a disciplinary penalty. However, this reduction in rank was challenged on the grounds of being incompetently passed by an unauthorized authority and lacking the necessary procedural fairness.
The central issue in this case was the validity of the order awarding a reduction in rank to Mir Ahmad Chandio. It was found that the penalty had been imposed by an authority that was not authorized to do so, rendering the order void and illegal.
Furthermore, the order failed to provide Mir Ahmad Chandio with an opportunity for a hearing, which is a fundamental aspect of procedural fairness in disciplinary matters. Additionally, the order did not specify the period for which the reduction in rank would be applicable.
Due to these serious deficiencies in the disciplinary process, the tribunal ruled that the order awarding a reduction in rank was void and illegal. As a result, the order was set aside. This case highlights the importance of adhering to the correct procedures and authorities when imposing disciplinary penalties and ensuring that civil servants are afforded their right to a fair hearing.
Unfair Dismissal Without Proper Inquiry: Manzoor Ahmed vs. Inspector-General of Police
Citation: 2000 PLC(CS) 1201 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Manzoor Ahmed vs. Inspector-General of Police, the appellant, Manzoor Ahmed, who served as a police constable, faced dismissal from service on the grounds that an under-trial prisoner under the control of an escort party, of which Manzoor Ahmed was a member, had escaped from custody.
The central issue in this case was the fairness and legality of Manzoor Ahmed’s dismissal from service. Manzoor Ahmed was dismissed without the proper conduct of a departmental inquiry against him and without affording him the opportunity for a hearing.
The tribunal found that the dismissal proceedings had serious flaws. Enquiry procedures were not properly followed, and Manzoor Ahmed was not provided with a detailed statement of allegations or charges against him. Additionally, witnesses were not properly examined under oath, and Manzoor Ahmed was not provided with a copy of the Enquiry Report before the final action was taken against him. These procedural violations rendered the entire proceedings against Manzoor Ahmed illegal and invalid.
The tribunal, in its judgment, set aside the orders of the authorities and remanded the case for reconsideration. It directed that a proper inquiry should be conducted against Manzoor Ahmed, adhering to the provisions of the relevant rules and regulations. This case highlights the importance of ensuring fair and lawful disciplinary proceedings, including the proper conduct of departmental inquiries and providing the accused with the opportunity to present their case and defend themselves.
Unjust Dismissal Without Proper Evidence: Deedar Ali vs. Inspector-General of Police
Citation: 2000 PLC(CS) 1192 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Deedar Ali vs. Inspector-General of Police, the appellant, Deedar Ali, was dismissed from service based on his alleged involvement in a theft case concerning a motorcycle that was said to have been recovered from him. The motorcycle’s recovery did not implicate Deedar Ali, and he was subsequently acquitted of the theft charge by a competent court.
The central issue in this case was the fairness and legality of Deedar Ali’s dismissal from service. It was observed that the authorities had not presented any additional evidence to support their belief that Deedar Ali had influenced the witnesses or manipulated the recovery of the stolen motorcycle. Additionally, no mandatory show-cause notice was issued to Deedar Ali before the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed.
The tribunal concluded that the dismissal order was unjust and did not adhere to the proper procedures outlined in Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988. It was set aside due to the lack of proper evidence, the absence of a show-cause notice, and the failure to follow established procedures.
This case highlights the importance of a fair and evidence-based approach in disciplinary proceedings against civil servants and the need to adhere to established rules and procedures to ensure justice is served.
Unjust Dismissal Without Proper Evidence: Deedar Ali vs. Inspector-General of Police
Citation: 2000 PLC(CS) 1192 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Deedar Ali vs. Inspector-General of Police, the appellant, Deedar Ali, faced dismissal from his civil service position based on his alleged involvement in a motorcycle theft case. It was claimed that the motorcycle in question had been recovered from him. However, the witnesses who testified about the recovery did not implicate Deedar Ali, and he was ultimately acquitted of the theft charge by a competent court.
The central issue in this case revolved around the fairness and legality of Deedar Ali’s dismissal from service. The tribunal noted that the authorities had failed to provide any additional evidence to support their belief that Deedar Ali had influenced the witnesses or manipulated the recovery of the stolen motorcycle. Furthermore, no mandatory show-cause notice was issued to Deedar Ali before the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed.
The tribunal found that the dismissal order was unjust, as it did not adhere to the proper procedures outlined in the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988. It was set aside due to the absence of proper evidence, the failure to issue a show-cause notice, and the authority’s failure to follow established procedures.
This case underscores the importance of a fair and evidence-based approach in disciplinary actions against civil servants. It emphasizes the need to follow established rules and procedures to ensure that justice is served and that individuals are not unfairly dismissed from their positions.
Unjust Compulsory Retirement Without Proper Evidence: Akhtar Hussain vs. Senior Superintendent of Police
Citation: 1999 PLC(CS) 592 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Akhtar Hussain vs. Senior Superintendent of Police, a group of civil servants who were police officials faced the imposition of a major penalty in the form of compulsory retirement from their positions with immediate effect. The basis for this penalty was the allegation that they had mixed with criminals.
The central issue in this case was the fairness and legality of imposing compulsory retirement on these civil servants. The charges against them were found to be not only vague but also of a general nature, lacking specific details. While the civil servants were issued show-cause notices, no formal inquiry was conducted, and the Competent Authority made the decision based solely on two documents: the show-cause notices and the replies of the civil servants.
The Service Tribunal ruled that these two documents were insufficient to prove the charges against the civil servants, as there was no concrete material before the Competent Authority to warrant the imposition of such a severe penalty. Moreover, the civil servants were condemned without being given the opportunity to present their case and defend themselves.
As a result, the Service Tribunal set aside the orders of compulsory retirement passed against the civil servants and ordered their reinstatement in service, treating the intervening period as leave if it was due.
This case highlights the importance of adhering to proper procedures and providing concrete evidence when imposing major penalties, such as compulsory retirement, on civil servants. It underscores the principle of natural justice, where individuals must be given a fair opportunity to respond to allegations before facing such severe consequences.
Premature Dismissal in Absence of Criminal Conviction: Ashraf Ali vs. Deputy Inspector-General of Police
Citation: 1998 PLC(CS) 954 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Ashraf Ali vs. Deputy Inspector-General of Police, a Police Head Constable who was in charge of a Police Post faced the imposition of a major penalty in the form of dismissal from service. This penalty was initiated based on the allegation that he was involved in a criminal case.
The key issue in this case revolved around the timing of the dismissal and the absence of a criminal conviction against the civil servant. While the civil servant was indeed facing a criminal case, it had not been proven or concluded at the time the departmental proceedings were initiated.
The Enquiry Officer in this case had recommended that the departmental proceedings against the civil servant be put on hold until a decision was reached in the criminal case against him. However, the authorities did not heed this recommendation and proceeded with the major penalty of dismissal from service.
The Service Tribunal, in its ruling, emphasized that at the stage when the departmental proceedings were initiated, the civil servant could not be legally considered an accused in the eyes of the law, especially in the absence of a criminal conviction. Therefore, the order of the authorities imposing the major penalty of dismissal from service was found to be legally unsustainable.
As a result, the Service Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal against the civil servant, highlighting the importance of waiting for the conclusion of a criminal case before taking severe departmental actions against an employee. This case underscores the principle that departmental proceedings should be fair and based on proven allegations to ensure justice and due process.
Unjust Removal Based on Hearsay: Abdul Latif vs. Deputy Inspector-General of Police
Citation: 1997 PLC(CS) 333 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Abdul Latif vs. Deputy Inspector-General of Police, a civil servant faced a charge-sheet and an inquiry against him. The charge alleged that he had played a role in registering a false and manipulated criminal case against an individual at his behest.
During the course of the inquiry, the Enquiry Officer found no evidence to support the charges against the civil servant and recommended his exoneration. The Competent Authority at the time accepted these recommendations and exonerated the civil servant.
However, a successor-in-office to the Competent Authority, who had previously exonerated the civil servant, decided to withdraw the order of exoneration and proceeded to remove the civil servant from service.
The critical issue in this case was the basis on which the removal order was passed by the successor-in-office. It was noted that the removal order was based on personal knowledge rather than evidence on record. Furthermore, the order was issued without recording any evidence or providing a proper opportunity for the civil servant to have a personal hearing.
The Service Tribunal, in its ruling, highlighted that the removal order against the civil servant was not only irregular but also ran counter to established principles of natural justice and fair play. The civil servant had essentially been condemned unheard, as the order was based on hearsay rather than concrete evidence.
In light of these irregularities and the violation of principles of natural justice, the Service Tribunal set aside the order that removed the civil servant from service. This case underscores the importance of following due process and ensuring that disciplinary actions are based on solid evidence rather than hearsay or personal knowledge.
Compulsory Retirement for Misuse of Official Position: Allahdino vs. Deputy Inspector-General of Police
Citation: 1997 PLC(CS) 342 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Allahdino vs. Deputy Inspector-General of Police, a civil servant serving as a Police Constable was subjected to compulsory retirement from service. The grounds for this disciplinary action were based on an allegation that he had misused his official position.
The specific incident in question involved the civil servant, accompanied by some Police personnel and private individuals, visiting a village without authorization while in plain clothes. During this visit, he allegedly misbehaved with a laborer and other villagers, which resulted in a disturbance of law and order in the village.
The civil servant admitted to having visited the village and having a confrontation with the laborer. However, he failed to justify his behavior towards the laborer and the villagers. On the other hand, the Authority was able to provide substantial evidence to support the charges against the civil servant.
In the view of the Service Tribunal, the civil servant’s actions, which led to a breach of the peace and misbehavior with the villagers, were indeed a misuse of his official position. Therefore, the disciplinary action taken against him, which involved compulsory retirement from service, was deemed justified.
This case illustrates the significance of maintaining discipline and appropriate conduct among law enforcement personnel, even in their off-duty activities, as their actions can impact public order and safety. The Service Tribunal upheld the compulsory retirement as a proportionate response to the civil servant’s misconduct in this case.
Unjust Dismissal of a Police Constable: Hamzokhan vs. Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sukkur
Citation: 1996 PLC(CS) 1054 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Hamzokhan vs. Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sukkur, a civil servant employed as a Police Constable faced dismissal from service. The grounds for this disciplinary action were based on two main allegations: his involvement in criminal cases and a unanimous resolution passed against him by high-ranking officials in the district.
The civil servant, despite facing these allegations, was exonerated from them by the Enquiry Officer. The Service Tribunal noted that the charges against the civil servant had not been proven, and he had not been directly linked to any criminal activities.
Moreover, the unanimous resolution passed by district high-ups, although expressing their opinions, could not be considered as sufficient proof to justify the dismissal of the civil servant.
In light of these factors and the absence of compelling evidence supporting the allegations, the Service Tribunal ruled that the order dismissing the civil servant from service was not legally sustainable. Consequently, the order of dismissal was set aside.
This case highlights the importance of a fair and evidence-based approach to disciplinary actions, even when high-ranking officials express their opinions. It underscores the need for concrete evidence to support such decisions and the requirement to uphold the principles of justice and due process in all employment matters, including those involving law enforcement personnel.
Unjust Dismissal of a Police Officer: Muhammad Latif vs. Inspector-General of Police, Sindh, Karachi
Citation: 1995 PLC(CS) 1061 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Muhammad Latif vs. Inspector-General of Police, Sindh, Karachi, a Police Officer faced dismissal from service based on allegations of a general nature. Initially, the civil servant submitted his reply to a show-cause notice containing these allegations.
Two separate inquiries were subsequently conducted, one by a Deputy Superintendent of Police (D.S.P.) and the other by a Deputy Inspector-General (D.I.G.). Both Enquiry Officers unanimously found that the civil servant could not be punished based on the available evidence, and as a result, the charges against him were dropped.
Despite this decision by the Enquiry Officers, the Inspector-General of Police (I.G.P.) issued a final show-cause notice to the civil servant, exercising his revisional powers under Rule 12 of the Rules. The civil servant submitted a reply to this show-cause notice, but the I.G.P. dismissed him from service without conducting a formal inquiry and without providing any material in the nature of evidence against him along with the show-cause notice.
The Service Tribunal noted that the I.G.P.’s decision to dismiss the civil servant was based on presumption, and no tangible evidence had been produced to substantiate this conclusion. The reasons given by the I.G.P. lacked a solid foundation in evidence.
Given the absence of compelling evidence and in light of the clear findings of the two Enquiry Officers who had unanimously declared that the civil servant could not be punished based on the available material, the Service Tribunal concluded that the I.G.P. was not in a position to hold that the charges against the civil servant were proven.
Consequently, the Service Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal from service passed by the I.G.P. and remanded the case to be decided afresh, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive inquiry against the civil servant.
This case underscores the importance of adhering to due process and the requirement for concrete evidence when taking disciplinary actions against civil servants, particularly in cases where allegations are of a general nature and involve potential dismissal from service.
Unsubstantiated Removal from Service: Allahdino vs. Senior Superintendent of Police, Larkana
Citation: 1994 PLC(CS) 595 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Allahdino vs. Senior Superintendent of Police, Larkana, an employee who served as a police officer was subjected to removal from service based on general allegations that “there was a general complaint that you were mixed up with criminals.”
The employee vehemently denied these allegations. The Service Tribunal observed that the allegations against the employee were vague and general in nature. Importantly, the Departmental Authorities had made no genuine efforts to substantiate these allegations, despite the employee’s clear and categorical denial.
No detailed inquiry had been conducted against the employee, nor was he provided with any additional material to support the allegations against him when he was served with the show-cause notice or subsequently.
Given the lack of concrete evidence and the failure of the Departmental Authorities to prove the allegations, the Service Tribunal concluded that the charges against the employee had not been established.
As a result, the order that led to the employee’s removal from service was found to be legally unsustainable.
This case underscores the principle that disciplinary actions against employees must be based on substantive evidence and due process, particularly when allegations are vague and general in nature. In the absence of adequate proof, removal from service cannot be justified.
Procedural Violation in Dismissal Case: Abid Ali vs. Superintendent of Police
Citation: 1993 PLC(CS) 1291 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Abid Ali vs. Superintendent of Police, the entire proceedings against a Police Official were deemed illegal and invalid due to the non-observance of provisions outlined in R. 6 of the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988.
The Service Tribunal emphasized that these rules provided a clear and prescribed procedure that had to be followed. The Competent Authority was obligated to adhere to the procedure outlined in R. 6 and had the discretion to pass an appropriate order based on the facts and circumstances.
However, in this case, it was found that the procedure as laid down in R. 6 of the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988, had been sidestepped, leading to an invalid dismissal of the Police Official.
This case highlights the significance of adhering to procedural rules and due process in disciplinary proceedings. Failure to follow prescribed procedures can render the entire process and resulting decisions invalid. In the case of Abid Ali, the dismissal of the Police Official was deemed unwarranted due to these procedural violations.
Procedural Defect in Dismissal Case: Shoukat Ali Shahani vs. Senior Superintendent of Police
Citation: 1993 PLC(CS) 698 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Shoukat Ali Shahani vs. Senior Superintendent of Police, a significant procedural defect was identified in the dismissal of an employee from service.
The issue at hand was the failure to follow proper procedures outlined in the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988. It was noted that no formal charge was communicated to the employee along with a statement of allegations against him, which are essential components of disciplinary proceedings. Furthermore, the employee was not given an opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry proceedings, and he was also denied a copy of the inquiry report with a final show-cause notice.
The Service Tribunal emphasized that employees have the right to be informed of the charges against them and to have the opportunity to defend themselves. This information is crucial for the accused to understand which charge has been proven against them. In this case, the absence of these procedural safeguards rendered the order of dismissal unsustainable due to the procedural defect.
This case underscores the importance of adhering to proper procedures and due process in disciplinary actions. Failure to observe these procedures can lead to significant legal challenges, as seen in the case of Shoukat Ali Shahani.
Lack of Evidence in Misconduct Case: Tasdiq Waris vs. S.S.P., Sindh Reserve Police
Citation: 1993 PLC(CS) 714 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Tasdiq Waris vs. S.S.P., Sindh Reserve Police, the validity of proceedings against a police officer who faced charges of misconduct, inefficiency, and corruption was examined.
The Competent Authority responsible for conducting the proceedings against the police officer was required to determine whether the charges against him had been proven. If the charges were indeed substantiated, then the next step was to determine whether one or more of the prescribed punishments could be awarded to the accused officer.
However, a significant issue arose in this case. It was observed that no supporting documents were provided to the police officer when he was served with the show-cause notice. The show-cause notice contained only the allegations, and the response from the officer amounted to a simple denial. This lack of documentary evidence made it difficult to prove the charge of misconduct against the accused.
Given the absence of concrete evidence on the record to support the allegations of misconduct, the penalty of dismissal awarded to the police officer was deemed unwarranted.
This case underscores the importance of evidence and due process in disciplinary proceedings. Inadequate evidence can lead to the dismissal of charges, as demonstrated in the case of Tasdiq Waris.
Procedural Defects in Dismissal Case: Shoukat Ali Shahani vs. Senior Superintendent of Police, S.R.P., Sukkur
Citation: 1993 PLC(CS) 698 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Shoukat Ali Shahani vs. Senior Superintendent of Police, S.R.P., Sukkur, several procedural defects were identified in the dismissal proceedings of an employee.
The primary issue in this case was the lack of adherence to proper procedural guidelines as laid down in the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988. It was noted that no formal charge was effectively communicated to the employee, along with a statement of allegations against him. This omission made it challenging for the employee to understand the specific charge or charges for which he was being dismissed from service.
Additionally, the employee was not provided with an opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry proceedings. Due process typically entails allowing the accused to present their defense and respond to the allegations made against them. This fundamental right was not afforded to the employee in this case.
Furthermore, the employee was not given a copy of the enquiry report along with a final show-cause notice. Understanding the details of the enquiry report and the evidence presented against him was crucial for the employee to mount an effective defense.
The court emphasized that the employee had the right to know which charge had been proven against him, and this information could only be ascertained from the final show-cause notice. This notice was deemed indispensable for a fair and transparent disciplinary process.
In summary, the case of Shoukat Ali Shahani highlighted significant procedural defects in the dismissal proceedings. The failure to follow the proper procedures as outlined in the relevant rules rendered the order of dismissal unsustainable on the grounds of these procedural deficiencies. This case underscores the importance of due process and adherence to established procedures in disciplinary actions.
Applicability of Fundamental Rights to Police Officers: Fahim Ahmed vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh
Citation: 1993 PLC(CS) 1035 – Karachi High Court Sindh
In the case of Fahim Ahmed vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, the issue of the applicability of fundamental rights to police officers was addressed by the court.
The central question in this case revolved around whether fundamental rights, as guaranteed under Article 8 of the Constitution, were applicable to members of the police service. Article 8 of the Constitution establishes fundamental rights for all citizens, but it contains an exception stating that these provisions would not apply to members of the armed forces, the police, or other forces responsible for the maintenance of public order.
The petitioner in this case was a member of the Police Service, and he had invoked fundamental rights in seeking redress for his grievance. However, the court ruled that the exception mentioned in Article 8 of the Constitution was applicable to members of the police service.
The court emphasized that police officers, in their official capacity, were charged with maintaining public order and upholding the law. Therefore, they fell under the category of individuals for whom fundamental rights would not be directly enforceable. Instead, their grievances and disciplinary matters were to be addressed exclusively under the provisions of the Police Act, 1861, and the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988.
This ruling reaffirmed the principle that members of the police service, while entitled to certain legal protections and due process, were subject to a separate legal framework that governed their conduct, discipline, and grievances. Fundamental rights, which applied to ordinary citizens, were not directly applicable to the police in their official capacity. This case clarified the legal standing of police officers in relation to fundamental rights and underscored the unique legal framework governing their actions and accountability.
Discretion of Punishing Authority in Considering Enquiry Officer’s Recommendations: Baqar Ali vs. Senior Superintendent of Police, Sukkur
Citation: 1992 PLC(CS) 826 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Baqar Ali vs. Senior Superintendent of Police, Sukkur, the issue at hand pertained to the discretion of the punishing authority in considering recommendations made by the Enquiry Officer regarding the nature and quantum of punishment to be imposed on a civil servant.
The key aspect addressed in this case was whether the recommendations made by the Enquiry Officer in his report were binding on the punishing authority or if the punishing authority had the discretion to determine the nature and extent of the penalty, even if the Enquiry Officer had not explicitly recommended a particular penalty.
The court ruled that, in cases where there was no explicit bar on the Enquiry Officer making recommendations regarding the penalty, such recommendations were not binding on the punishing authority. The punishing authority retained the discretion to assess the situation and determine the appropriate nature and quantum of the penalty to be imposed.
This ruling highlighted the separation of roles between the Enquiry Officer, who conducts the inquiry and submits a report with findings and recommendations, and the punishing authority, which has the authority to decide the final penalty. While the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer can carry weight and influence the decision of the punishing authority, they are not legally binding, allowing the punishing authority to exercise its discretion in accordance with the circumstances of each case.
In summary, this case clarified that the Enquiry Officer’s recommendations, while important, did not restrict the discretionary power of the punishing authority in determining the penalty to be imposed on a civil servant.
Invalidity of Secret Enquiry: Dost Muhammad Chandio vs. Deputy Inspector-General of Police
Citation: 1992 PLC(CS) 64 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Dost Muhammad Chandio vs. Deputy Inspector-General of Police, the central issue revolved around the validity of a secret enquiry conducted against the appellant and its implications for the imposition of a major penalty.
The key element examined in this case was whether the Enquiry Officer’s decision to conduct a secret enquiry, one that was not explicitly provided for in the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules of 1988, was legally valid. Furthermore, the case examined whether evidence gathered during this secret enquiry could serve as the basis for imposing a major penalty on the appellant.
The court ruled that the secret enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was not in accordance with the established rules and procedures outlined in the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules of 1988. These rules did not include provisions for secret enquiries, and therefore, the evidence collected during such an enquiry could not be considered valid grounds for imposing a major penalty on the appellant.
This decision underscored the importance of adhering to the established procedures and rules when conducting inquiries and taking disciplinary actions against civil servants. The absence of specific provisions for secret enquiries within the applicable rules rendered the procedure invalid in this case.
In summary, the case of Dost Muhammad Chandio vs. Deputy Inspector-General of Police emphasized the necessity of following prescribed procedures and ensuring that inquiries and disciplinary actions are carried out in compliance with the relevant rules and regulations.
Distinction Between “Efficient Police Officer” and “Good Police Officer”: Ali Akbar vs. D.I.G.P. Commandant Sindh Reserve Police Karachi
Citation: 1992 PLC(CS) 666 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Ali Akbar vs. D.I.G.P. Commandant Sindh Reserve Police Karachi, a significant issue was raised regarding the interpretation of certain rules within the Sindh Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules of 1988. The central question was whether the discharge of a police constable, under Rule 12.21 of the Police Rules of 1934, could be justified when the constable was considered unlikely to become a “good police officer.”
The case highlighted a crucial distinction between the terms “efficient police officer” and “good police officer.” The court clarified that the discharge of a constable under Rule 12.21 of the Police Rules of 1934 could only be warranted when the constable was unlikely to prove as an “efficient police officer.” However, the discharge on the grounds that the constable was not likely to become a “good police officer” was not covered by the said rule.
This interpretation rested on the understanding that there was a marked difference between being an “efficient police officer” and a “good police officer.” As such, it was determined that the order of discharge passed against the constable did not fall within the scope of Rule 12.21.
Moreover, the constable had been discharged with the stigma of having remained absent unauthorizedly. This raised the issue of whether he was entitled to a show-cause notice. The court held that unauthorised absence could be deemed “misconduct,” which, in turn, required formal disciplinary action against the constable.
In summary, the case of Ali Akbar vs. D.I.G.P. Commandant Sindh Reserve Police Karachi provided clarity on the distinction between being an “efficient police officer” and a “good police officer” and emphasized the importance of adhering to the appropriate rules and procedures when considering the discharge of a police constable, particularly in cases involving unauthorized absence.
Reduction in Rank vs. Minor Penalty: Muhammad Sadiq vs. Inspector-General of Police, Sindh, Karachi
Citation: 1992 PLC(CS) 173 – Service Tribunal Sindh
In the case of Muhammad Sadiq vs. Inspector-General of Police, Sindh, Karachi, a significant matter arose concerning the imposition of penalties on a Police Officer for acts of omission and commission. The central issue revolved around whether a major penalty, specifically the reduction in rank, was justified in this case or if a minor penalty would have been more appropriate.
The Enquiry Officer in the case had recommended the imposition of a minor penalty for one of the eight charges that were framed against the Police Officer, as only one charge had been proved. However, the Authority disagreed with the Enquiry Officer’s recommendations and imposed a major penalty, which was the reduction in rank.
The key question in this case was the validity of the imposition of a major penalty, given the Enquiry Officer’s recommendations for a minor penalty for only one of the charges.
Upon examination, the Enquiry Report showed that the Enquiry Officer had thoroughly discussed the evidence related to each charge and had arrived at the right conclusion regarding them. However, the Authority’s decision to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer was challenged on the grounds that the Authority did not provide any reasons, let alone plausible ones, for its disagreement with the Enquiry Officer.
Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, Muhammad Sadiq. It determined that the major penalty of reduction in rank was not justified in this case, especially in the absence of any reasoning provided by the Authority for its disagreement with the Enquiry Officer’s findings. As a result, the major penalty was substituted with a minor penalty, specifically the stoppage of the annual increment due to the appellant Police Officer on a specified date, without cumulative effect.
This case underscores the importance of providing clear and reasoned justifications when deviating from the recommendations of an Enquiry Officer, especially when it comes to major penalties such as the reduction in rank
Jurisdiction of High Court in Service Matters: Abdul Aziz vs. Inspector-General of Police, Sindh
Citation: 1990 PLC(CS) 637 – Karachi High Court, Sindh
In the case of Abdul Aziz vs. Inspector-General of Police, Sindh, the matter pertained to the jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters, particularly when a penalty of removal from service had been converted into compulsory retirement from service in a Departmental appeal.
The central issue in this case revolved around the jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters and whether a police official who had been subjected to compulsory retirement from service could file a Constitutional petition against the imposed penalty.
The relevant legal framework included the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules of 1988, as well as Articles 199 and 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973).
The High Court, in its judgment, clarified that its jurisdiction in service matters had been ousted to the extent of the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, which had exclusive jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the police official. Service Tribunals were considered quasi-judicial bodies that could examine the merits of the case and intervene in the discretion exercised by departmental authorities.
The ouster of jurisdiction of the High Court, as per clause (2) of Article 212 of the Constitution, was of a constitutional nature and restricted the High Court’s jurisdiction in service matters. Therefore, any Constitutional petition against compulsory retirement from service was deemed misconceived and was subsequently dismissed.
This case establishes the importance of recognizing the jurisdictional boundaries in service matters and the role of Service Tribunals in adjudicating disputes related to disciplinary actions and penalties imposed on government employees. It reaffirms the exclusive authority of the Service Tribunal in such matters.
The Sindh Service Tribunal has jurisdiction over various matters related to the employment and service conditions of government employees in the province of Sindh, Pakistan. Here are the kinds of matters that can typically be taken to the Sindh Service Tribunal:
- Disciplinary Matters: This includes cases where government employees face disciplinary actions such as suspensions, dismissals, or removals from service. Employees can approach the Service Tribunal to challenge these actions if they believe they were unjustly treated.
- Appeals Against Penalties: If an employee receives a penalty, such as a reduction in rank, fine, or compulsory retirement, they can appeal the decision to the Service Tribunal for a review of the penalty imposed.
- Service Disputes: Disputes related to service conditions, promotions, transfers, seniority, and other service-related matters can be brought before the Service Tribunal for resolution.
- Recruitment and Appointment Disputes: Matters concerning recruitment processes, appointments, and allegations of unfair or biased selection procedures can be addressed through the Service Tribunal.
- Retirement and Pension Issues: Employees can seek redressal for issues related to retirement benefits, pension calculations, and disputes arising from retirement matters.
- Enforcement of Service Rules: The Service Tribunal can enforce and interpret service rules and regulations governing government employees in Sindh.
- Review of Departmental Decisions: Employees can challenge decisions made by their respective government departments if they believe these decisions are not in accordance with the law or established procedures.
- Constitutional and Legal Violations: If government actions or decisions violate constitutional or legal provisions, employees can approach the Service Tribunal to seek remedies.
It’s important to note that the Sindh Service Tribunal primarily deals with matters related to government employees working under the provincial government of Sindh. The tribunal plays a crucial role in providing a forum for government employees to seek justice and redressal of grievances related to their employment and service conditions within the province.
Matters related to government employment and service conditions in Sindh can be taken to the High Court or the Sindh Service Tribunal, depending on their nature and the legal framework. Here’s a general guideline on what type of matters can typically be taken to the High Court and what matters cannot be taken to the High Court:
Matters That Can Be Taken to the High Court:
- Constitutional Challenges: High Courts have the authority to hear cases involving alleged violations of constitutional rights. If a government employee believes that their fundamental rights under the Constitution of Pakistan have been violated by government actions or policies, they can file a constitutional petition in the High Court.However to see the limits of High Court jurisdiction see citation 1990 PLC(CS) 637 above.
- Administrative and Judicial Review: High Courts can review administrative and judicial decisions made by government authorities, including those related to employment matters. If a government employee believes that a decision was made unfairly, unlawfully, or in violation of principles of natural justice, they can seek judicial review in the High Court.
- Writs and Injunctions: High Courts can issue writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition to enforce legal rights or restrain government actions. For example, a government employee can seek a writ of mandamus to compel the government to perform a specific duty or take a particular action.
Matters That Generally Cannot Be Taken to the High Court:
- Service Tribunal Jurisdiction: The jurisdiction of Service Tribunals is exclusive in matters related to the employment and service conditions of government employees. Matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal are generally not entertained by the High Court unless there are constitutional issues involved.
- Service Rules and Regulations: Disputes related to the interpretation and application of service rules, regulations, and policies are often considered administrative matters and are initially addressed within the government department or the Service Tribunal.
- Purely Internal Matters: Matters that are purely internal to a government department and do not involve constitutional or legal violations may not be entertained by the High Court.
We will keep updating this page based on future queries.
