High court can’t order suspension of police officer in collateral issue, SC

Two-member bench tells Karachi police chief to ensure fresh proble against SHO

Karachi

The Supreme Court has suspended the Sindh High Court’s order for the suspension of s police inspector and observed that the high court cannot pass an order for suspending suspension of a police officer in a collateral issue.

The observation came during a hearing of a petition of police officer Imdad Ali Khawja against his suspension by the high court. 

The petitioner counsel, Fareed Ahmed Dayo, submitted that his client, who was the Garden SHO, was again suspended by the high court despite recalling its previous suspension order and compliance with a court order for the execution of a non-bailable warrant of a convict who was on bail. 

He said a single bench of the high court that first ordered suspension of the petitioner had recalled the order of another bench that had ordered his restoration on basis of compliance with the court order, but he was again placed under suspension, which, the counsel argued, was contrary to the law.

A two-member Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Amir Hani Muslim observed that once an order is passed by the bench, the other bench cannot review such an order ordinarily, as in proceedings in matters of criminal jurisdiction, the high court does not have the power to review an order.

It observed that the perception that an officer who was facing an inquiry must be placed under suspension was against the spirit of service rules and even otherwise it was never encouraged that the high court in collateral proceedings could step in the shoes of the competent authority by ordering the suspension of a civil servant while issue orders for an initial inquiry. 

The apex court observed that discretion with regard to placing an officer under suspension fell in the domain of the competent authority under the service law and in case the competent authority considered or anticipated that during the inquiry the officer may temper with the evidence or influence the witnesses or act in a manner that could prejudice the outcome of the inquiry, the competent authority may suspend that officer.

The court observed that the high court cannot pass an order for the suspension of a police officer in a collateral issue but can always recommend an inquiry against him if his conduct during the course of the hearing appears to be unbecoming of a police officer. 

It converted the petition into an appeal and held that the suspension of the petitioner was without lawful authority. However, it directed Karachi’s additional IGP to initiate an inquiry against the petitioner in terms of the order passed by the high court on June 1, 2016 and submit a report when the inquiry was finalised.

The court directed that the inquiry should be conducted by an officer other than the officer within the division, competent under rules, and it should be concluded within six weeks. 

It observed that in the intervening period the petitioner would not be posted as SHO in order to avoid possible influence by the petitioner during the inquiry. It also directed the high court to conclude the appeal of the convict within two months as the matter pertained to the year 2006.