Muzammil Shah v. Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Karachi & another

Background

The appellant, a police constable posted at a police station in District South, Karachi, was dismissed from service by order dated 18.07.2022. The charge was that he had been absent from duty without permission for 716 days, from 01.05.2020 to 18.07.2022. His departmental appeal was rejected on 29.09.2022, and he then filed a service appeal under section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973.

His case was that he had not been absent at all. He said the SSP South had deputed him to perform duties as a gunman with a senior police officer. He also said he was dismissed without being served a show-cause notice or a final show-cause notice, and without a regular inquiry. The department replied that show-cause notices dated 10.08.2020 and 28.05.2021 had been issued and not answered, and that he was a habitual absentee.

Issues before the Tribunal

• Had the department proved the alleged 716 days of unauthorised absence?
• Had the show-cause notices actually been served on the appellant?
• Could the competent authority dispense with a regular inquiry?

The Tribunal's reasoning

The appellant's specific claim that he had been deputed as a gunman was answered in the written statements only with "formal" and "no comments" replies. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Bashir Ahmed v. Muhammad Aslam (2003), which explains Order VIII, Rules 3 to 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Tribunal held that a fact not specifically denied is taken as admitted. It also noted an earlier 2018 absence notice that had been filed after the office of the SSP District South confirmed he was performing duty with the senior officer. On this record, the respondents had not proved the alleged absence.

On service, the department had not produced any duly received copy of the show-cause notices. On the inquiry, the Tribunal applied Sr. Superintendent of Police (Operations) v. Shahid Nazir (2022 SCMR 327). A regular inquiry is not needed in every case. But if the department decides to dispense with it, it must record compelling and justifiable reasons in writing. A line in the show-cause notice saying "no formal enquiry is necessary" was not sufficient. Where a charge rests on disputed facts, which the appellant denied, it cannot be resolved without recording evidence and allowing cross-examination.

Outcome

The appeal was allowed. The orders dated 18.07.2022 and 29.09.2022 were set aside, and the appellant was reinstated in service with full back benefits. The parties were left to bear their own costs.

Why it matters

Absence from duty is one of the most common charges in police disciplinary cases. This judgment shows that the department still has to prove the absence and show that its notices were served. If it decides not to hold a regular inquiry, it has to give real reasons in writing. Where the employee disputes the facts, for example by showing he was deputed elsewhere, a summary procedure is unlikely to be enough.