' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment dated 24-9-2001 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, by which appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Departmental Authority of his dismissal from service has been rejected.
2. The petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station City, Kamoki. He was proceeded against for disciplinary action on the following charges:-- "On 16-3-1999, 6 six unknown armed bandits looted the jewellery shops in the busiest bazaar of Kamoki Town. Prior to looting the shops, the desperadoes resorted to indiscriminate firing and played havoc in the vicinity. As per report, the culprits looted as many as six jewellery shops and made away with gold ornaments and cash worth Rs,1,00,000 on a donkey cart brandishing their arms without any let and hindrance. Accordingly case F.I.R. No 146/99 was registered at Police Stantion City Kamoki. Earlier enquiries into the incident divulged that the security arrangements were highly unsatisfactory and scanty as not a single security guard was retained in any of the jewellery shops which obviously tends to culpable neglect on the part of the Beat Officer and S.H.O.
It is astonishing to note that you even failed to file a single complaint against the jewellers and not a single case was registered for unsatisfactory security arrangements, which is misconduct on your part and warrants severe disciplinary action against you."
3. The Departmental Authority keeping in view the nature of the charges, considered it a fit case for not holding a regular inquiry for the facts were almost admitted therefore, he was held negligent for not keeping vigilance which was his duty at the relevant time when the incident took place.
4. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was a case of holding of regular inquiry, the Service Tribunal has justifiably repelled in paragraph No,8 of the impugned judgment which is reproduced below for facility of ready reference:-- "8. Certain admitted facts have been brought on record which has satisfied me that holding of a regular enquiry through an enquiry officer was not necessary. Appellant Riaz Ali Shah, admitted that he was Incharge of the Police Station, Kamoki City on the day when the dacoity took place.
Similarly appellant Mudassar lqbal does not deny that the area where the offence took place was within his beat at the time when dacoits entered the shops of the jewelers of Kamoki Town. It may be kept in mind, as admitted by both the parties, that the dacoity took place after sunset and the shops were open and doing business. This was time when any reasonable and prudent police officer would tighten the vigil around the area within his beat. The decoits resorted to indiscriminate firing in the first instance to create panic and thereafter, entered the shops to commit loot and they left the place on donkey cart. These facts have also not been disputed. Even if the police was not in immediate vicinity, firing in air provided sufficient time to them to make appearance at the spot and apprehend the perpetrators of crime, Kamoki being not a big town.
The very presence of the dacoits at the spot firing in discriminately, entering the shop without let or hindrance prove only one fact i,e, that they knew that vigil was lax, which afforded them sufficient opportunity to come to the spot loot the shopkeepers and go away at will. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the appellants had posted policemen at different spots who fired to stop the fleeing bandits, is an argument which is either an afterthought or shows gross direction of duty. This argument instead of helping the appellants squarely goes against them. I wonder what the policemen were firing at and how their presence prevented the dacoits to operate with impunity. While listening to the arguments, I become assured that the incident took place either with the connivance of the police or due to their gross negligence and in anyone of these events the punishment given to them is adequate and commensurate with the inefficiency and misconduct displayed and committed by them. Learned District Attorney informed me that an ante dated F.I.R. Was lodged against the shopkeepers who failed to keep a gunman in contravention with the Ordinance requiring them to protect their property and life of the customers from impending robbery or dacoity. The registration of the cases was done after learning of the "Roznamchas" and the Appellate Authority has taken this circumstance into consideration to arrive at the conclusion that this misconduct refrained him from taking a lenient view. I am convinced in my mind that lack of care and caution displayed by the appellants resulted in the commission of offence, which was either with the connivance of the appellants, and if its assumption is far fledged, then definitely due to their gross negligence. In any case, time has come to take deterrent action against police officials, who apart from getting their confidence eroded in the minds of the public, are a constant burden on the public/exchequer, What is the practical utility of such policeman. Who in a small town of Kamoki failed to prevent a dacoity after sunset, committed in the bazaar housing jewelery market. Resultantly, appellants do not deserve to be in Police force, as such their appeals are dismissed without any order as to costs."
5. It is a case of individual grievance. No case of substantial question of law of public importance has been made out for interference as contemplated by Article 212 of the Constitution.
6. Findings recorded by the Departmental Authority based on established facts which have been upheld with cogent reasons by the Service Tribunal, do not suffer from any illegality.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits, which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.