' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---This petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment dated 28-6-2002 passed by a single Member of Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in a service appeal.
2. The petitioner, a member of police service of district Jhang, was served with a show-cause notice by the Superintendent of Police, Jhang, containing the following charge: "You, HC Abdul Ghafoor No.565 of this District have proved to be unworthy of your rank and post.
You enjoy a stingingly bad reputation thereby bring a bad name to the Police Department. During your period of service, you earned 14 bad entries and you were awarded departmental punishments on various accounts. Certain agencies have secretly confirmed that you are a thoroughly corrupt officer but due to your influence and fear, nobody is ready to provide any evidence to this effect. I have also confirmed the reports through my own secret information. As such you are misfit to continue in the Department and need to be weeded out in National interest."
3. In reply to the show-cause notice, the petitioner denied the allegations and while raising a number of technical objections to the proposed action, demanded regular inquiry into the allegation. The Superintendent of Police having considered the reply of the petitioner, while dispensing with the requirement of regular inquiry, awarded him the punishment of compulsory retirement from service vide order dated 26-6-2000 under Punjab Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules 1975. The petitioner upon completion of statutory period for disposal of his departmental appeal, filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which was dismissed through the impugned judgment with the following observations:-- "4. I have considered the arguments from both sides and also gone through the relevant record including extracts of adverse entries in the service record of the appellant. The appellant was proceeded against on the main allegation of bad reputation, which is established from record produced. The appellant was heard in person by the competent authority before passing the impugned order. His detailed explanation against the charges was considered. I find that no miscarriage of justice had taken place in the case of the appellant. The proceedings against him were initiated and concluded in accordance with law. Therefore, considering facts of the case, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned orders. Appeal is accordingly dismissed."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that bad entries in the service record itself would not be a valid ground to proceed against the petitioner and award him major penalty of compulsory retirement from service without holding the regular inquiry as provided under the Punjab Police E&D Rules 1975. The learned counsel argued that there was no other evidence in support of the allegations contained in the charge-sheet and the use of bad entries and departmental punishment awarded to the petitioner as evidence against him, would amount to punish the petitioner twice for the same charge without providing him a fair opportunity to make his defence.
5. Prior to the present proceedings, the petitioner was proceeded against for departmental action at a number of times and was awarded punishments. The petitioner earned not less than 14 bad entries in the service record and despite repeated warnings, he made no effort to improve his conduct. It is evidence from the order passed by the Superintendent of Police that the punishment of compulsory retirement was awarded to the petitioner after thorough scrutiny of his service record and providing him personal hearing by calling him to the orderly room to explain his position but the petitioner failed to offer any satisfactory explanation to the charges. The procedure for conduct of departmental proceedings under Punjab Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, is provided in Rule 6 of the said rules and it is for the authority to decide that which procedure should be adopted. The petitioner was proceeded against under the General Police Proceedings Procedure as envisaged in Rule 6 (3) of the above rules which provides as under:-- "(3) If the authority decides to hold General Police Proceedings, the procedure shall be as under:--
(i) The authority shall determine whether in the light of facts of the case or in the interests of justice, a departmental inquiry through an Inquiry Officer, is necessary, if it decides that it is not necessary, it shall--
(a) by order in writing, inform the accused of the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and the grounds of the action; and
(b) give him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against that action: ' Provided that no such opportunity shall be given when the authority is satisfied that in the interest of security of Pakistan or any part thereof, it is not expedient to give such opportunity."
6. The police is a disciplined force and if the authority decides that the requirement of regular inquiry is not necessary, the authority may while adopting the summary procedure in terms of Rule 6 (3) of the above rules, pass an appropriate order. The professional misconduct and indiscipline of the petitioner, a member of disciplined force, being proved by the bad entries persistently earned by him in his service record, there would be no need of regular inquiry as provided under Rule 6 (4) of the ibid rules. The order dated 26-6-2001 passed by the Superintendent of Police is read as under:-- "HC Abdul Ghafoor No.565 of this district was proceeded against departmentally under the Punjab Police (E&D) Rule, 1975 by issuing him a Show-Cause Notice No.292/ST, dated 7-2-2001 on the following omissions and commissions:-- ' While posted in Jhang District Police, he proved himself to be unworthy for holding his present rank and post. He enjoyed a stingingly bad reputation thereby bringing a bad name to the Police Department. During the tenure of his service, he earned 14 bad entries coupled awards of departmental punishments on different counts. Besides, certain Agencies had secretly confirmed that he was a thoroughly corrupt Police Officer but due to his influence and fear nobody was coming forward to provide any substantial evidence to this effect against him. I have also confirmed the reports through my own secret sources/information. As such he was deemed to be unfit to retain in Police Department and needed to be weeded out in the national interest.
' The HC has submitted his reply to the show-cause notice and controverted the allegations against him. He was summoned in Orderly Room on 26-6-2001 and heard in person. He was heard at length. During personal hearing the HC has not rendered any convincing and plausible, explanation to the charges against him except to beat about the bush by extending lame excuses.
Scrutiny of his service record has, unrevealed that as many as 14 adverse entries stands incorporated including major/minor punishments against him, which clearly indicates his gross professional misconduct in the accomplishment of his statutory assignment. In addition to his chequered service record the charge of corruption on the part of the said HC stand established through secret reports of certain agencies. Such type of incorrigible and dishonest officer is a stigma on the face of Police force who cannot be sustained and tolerated in the Department being a symbol of humiliation and degradation on the image of Police Force. Weeding out of such black sheep from the Police Department would be a gracious and sublime task in the national interest on one-side and on the other side an example for the others who are serving in Police Force.
' Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case. I hold the HC guilty of the allegations which stand proved against him so I award him the punishment of compulsory retirement from Service under the ibid Rules w,e,f, 26-6-2001 by taking a lenient view, keeping in view, his length of service in Police Department.
' Issue order in O.B. All concerned to note."
7. The perusal of the order shows that Superintendent of Police having examined the service record of the petitioner and considering his case in details, formed an opinion that he was not fit to be further retained in police service and instead of awarding him the punishment of dismissal from service, while taking lenient view, imposed upon him the penalty of compulsory retirement from service.
8. We having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, find no merit in this petition which is dismissed accordingly. Leave is refused.