Wrongful termination of police officer
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a police officer, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, who was dismissed from service in 1994 over a charge of being absent from duty. His appeal to the Service Tribunal was rejected. However, in 2005 the Chief Minister accepted his mercy petition and directed his reinstatement. The authorities implemented this directive, and the officer went on to complete required training, get his name entered into the promotion list, and was eventually promoted twice, first to Sub-Inspector and later to Inspector.
Two years after reinstatement, the government issued a show-cause notice claiming the reinstatement itself had been illegal, but later withdrew this notice while a court case challenging it was pending. Despite this, years later in 2002 the authorities dismissed the officer again, this time retroactively, treating his service as having ended back in 1994. The Service Tribunal ruled in his favor, and the government appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, upholding the officer's reinstatement. It held that dismissal cannot be made retrospective unless a law specifically allows it, and that a wrong cannot be corrected at any time, especially after someone has served diligently and earned promotions over many years. The Court also noted that once the government withdrew its show-cause notice, the matter was closed and could not be reopened without lawful justification. This case highlights protections against arbitrary retrospective punishment and the importance of finality in administrative decisions affecting employees' careers.
یہ مقدمہ ایک پولیس افسر، اسسٹنٹ سب انسپکٹر، سے متعلق ہے جسے 1994 میں ڈیوٹی سے غیر حاضر رہنے کے الزام میں ملازمت سے برخاست کر دیا گیا تھا۔ سروس ٹریبونل میں اس کی اپیل مسترد ہو گئی۔ تاہم 2005 میں وزیراعلیٰ نے اس کی رحم کی درخواست منظور کرتے ہوئے اسے بحال کرنے کی ہدایت جاری کی۔ حکام نے اس ہدایت پر عمل درآمد کیا، اور افسر نے مطلوبہ تربیت مکمل کی، اس کا نام ترقی کی فہرست میں شامل ہوا، اور بالآخر اسے دو مرتبہ ترقی دی گئی، پہلے سب انسپکٹر اور بعد میں انسپکٹر کے عہدے پر۔
بحالی کے دو سال بعد، حکومت نے ایک شوکاز نوٹس جاری کیا جس میں دعویٰ کیا گیا کہ اس کی بحالی بذاتِ خود غیر قانونی تھی، لیکن بعد میں یہ نوٹس واپس لے لیا گیا جبکہ اس کے خلاف عدالت میں ایک مقدمہ زیرِ التوا تھا۔ اس کے باوجود، برسوں بعد 2002 میں حکام نے افسر کو دوبارہ برخاست کر دیا، اس بار ماضی سے لاگو ہونے والے انداز میں، یعنی اس کی سروس کو
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
In this judgment a case of wrong termination of a Police officer has been discussed. Kindly read it to gain knowledge on the subject. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 1220 SUPREME-COURT Side Appellant : CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Side Opponent : Malik ASIF HAYAT S. 4---Rules of Business (Punjab), 1974, Sched. VII, Part-A, Sr.No.20---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), Ss. 21 & 24---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 212(3)---Appeal---Assistant Sub-Inspector Police---Dismissal from service vide order dated 5-7-1994---Absence from duty, charge of---Rejection of appeal by Service Tribunal---Directive of Chief Minister issued after accepting mercy petition in June 2005 for reinstatement of appellant in service---Implementation of such directive by authority, completion of one year "D" Course by appellant and subsequent entering his name into list "E" and promotion to post of Sub-Inspector---Issuance of show-cause notice by authority after two years alleging appellant's reinstatement to be illegal---Withdrawal of such show-cause notice by authority during pendency of constitutional petition filed thereagainst by appellant and his subsequent promotion to rank of Inspector---Dismissal of appellant from service w.e.f. 5-7-1997 vide order dated 2-1-2002 on same ground---Acceptance of appellant's appeal by Service Tribunal---Validity---termination from service could not be with retrospective effect, unless competent authority was expressly empowered in such regard by some statute or rules made thereunder---Rectification of wrong could not be made at any time as such practice would be dangerous for service structure---Action should have been initiated against those responsible for such wrong, which could not be rectified after a long period during which appellant had not only performed his duties diligently, but had also earned few promotions and risen to rank of Inspector---Such directive of Chief Minister was not liable to be implemented, but none had shown moral courage to resist same at relevant time--- Appellant had been reinstated in year 2005, while he had been dismissed finally on 2-1-2010 with retrospective effect i.e. on 5-7-1994---Authority had already exercised powers under S. 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897 by issuing show-cause notice, which had been withdrawn during proceedings pending in High Court---Such matter was closed once for all and could not be re-opened without any lawful justification---Order passed by a competent authority, if had taken effect and conferred a legal right, could not be rescinded subject to certain lawful exceptions---Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, in circumstances.