MUZAMMAL KHAN vs INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, LAHORE S — 2025 SCMR 733 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUZAMMAL KHAN VS INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, LAHORE S. 4---Dismissal from service---Absence without leave---Interference in penalty---Principle---Substantial question of law of public importance---Scope---Petitioner/civil servant remained absent from service and was proceeded against departmentally and was dismissed from service---Penalty imposed by authorities was maintained by Service Tribunal---Validity---Tribunal or Court intervenes due to severity or nature of penalty imposed by competent authority by considering it unreasonable, perverse, excessively harsh, or by exercising leniency---Such interference is based on conclusion that penalty is disproportionate to proven misconduct as determined through test of proportionality---Interference with penalty imposed by department must be approached with caution and careful consideration, reserved for cases where order is entirely perverse or so clearly disproportionate and excessive to the misconduct that allowing it to stand would be unfair, unjust, and inequitable---Petitioner/civil servant was repeatedly served and called to present his defence but chose not to, particularly in the appeal and the revision which he himself filed yet failed to appear in or tender his defence---Cases of willful absence from duty are fairly straightforward as government officers who deliberately are absent from duty without permission are aware of the fact that they would be proceeded against for their absence from duty---Legal issue may qualify as a substantial question of law of public importance if it; (i) requires interpretation of law, rules, instructions, notifications or governmental policy; (ii) remains unresolved by Supreme Court or is subject to ambiguity, conflicting interpretations, or requires a discussion of alternative perspectives; (iii) exposes a lack of clarity in law, particularly where contradictory judicial precedents exist; or (iv) reveals a serious violation of due process that affects fundamental rights or procedural fairness under the Constitution---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Service Tribunal as petitioner/civil servant failed to raise any substantial question of law of public importance---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

MUZAMMAL KHAN vs INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, LAHORE S — 2025 SCMR 733 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR