 |
| PLD 2026 SC 205 |
پولیس حراست میں تشدد اور موت: بریت کے باوجود محکمانہ کارروائی برقرار
📖 مختصر کہانی
⚖️ اہم نکات
🎯 فیصلہ کا اصول
Must read Judgement.
PLD 2026 Supreme Court 205
Present: Amin-ud-Din Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Naeem Akhter Afghan, JJ
KHALID MEHMOOD and 2 others-Petitioners
Versus
The DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, D.G.KHAN and others-Respondents
Civil Petitions Nos. 1041, 1042 and 1327 of 2024, decided on 21st August, 2025.
2023). (Against the judgment dated 17.01.2024 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed in Appeals Nos. 3338, 3342 and 3343 of
K/s
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)---
---S.4--Punjab Police ice (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R.2(iii)-Constitution of of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 14, 10A & 212 (3)---Misconduct--Acquittal in criminal case-Custodial violence--Enhancing of penalty-Petitioners/civil servants were serving in police who were dismissed from service for physically torturing an accused in custody which resulted in his death---Authorities dismissed petitioners/ civil servants from service and their appeals were also dismissed by Service Tribunal---Plea raised by petitioners/civil servants was that after they had been acquitted in criminal trial, the allegation of mis-conduct had become baseless---Validity---Constitution imposes a duty upon State to protect right to life of every citizen and to prevent custodial violence and killings--Such Constitutional guarantees against illegal I detention, detention, ar arrest, brutality, torture and extra judicial killings in any form are bedrock legal and fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution, therefore, illegal detention and torture are neither encouraged nor justified under any circumstances---Principle of fundamental rights is to ensure secure and just society, which has been recognized worldwide and adopted by United Nations in 1948 through Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)-Allegations against petitioners/civil servants in their capacity as police officials of unlawful confinement, maltreatmenot and torture of deceased were established during inquiry through evidence and material described in report of inquiry officer available on record--By detaining deceased accused and subjecting him to torture, petitioners/civil servants acted in violation of their duty to act in accordance with law-Such act of petitioners/civil servants amounted to misuse of authority falling within the definition of grave misconduct defined in Rule 2(iii) of Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975---Penalty imposed by authorized officer did not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct committed by petitioners/civil servants-Competent authority provided opportunity to petitioners/civil servant to defend themselves---After adopting due process, competent authority was justified in enhancing cing penalty from reduction in pay by one stage for a period of two years recommended by inquiry officer to that of dismissal from their service---Such departmental proceedings were necessary to uphold rule of law and maintain public confidence in state institutions--Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Service Tribunal as petitioners/civil servants were unable to point out any substantial question of law of public importance---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. and leave to appeal was refused.
Mudasar Khalid Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 1041 and 1042 of 2024). Hafiz Noor Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 1327 of 2024).
Baleegh-uz-Zaman, A.A.G., and Zafar Hayat, DSP, DG Khan for Respondents.
Amicus Curie: Kamran Adil, Additional I.G. Punjab.