R. 4(1)(b)(iv)--police officials---Dismissal from service--- Allegation of travelling in a private car without appropriate permission; abusing official position for the purpose of extortion; tarnishing the reputation of the police department, and fabricating information to conceal misconduct--[Per Yahya Afridi, J. (Majority view): Convincing material was available on record to show that the petitioners (whilst in police uniform) were travelling on a motorway in a private car without either informing or seeking permission from the appropriate authority---Petitioners were arrested pursuant to a call of the complainant to the Motorway police, indicating a premeditated and deliberate violation of procedure on their part-Overall conduct of the petitioners, including unauthorized travel in police uniform and the subsequent abuse of their official position, painted a clear picture of gross misconduct---Such actions were not only in violation of the trust placed in them by virtue of their positions but also signaled a disregard for the laws and procedures they were entrusted to uphold-Such conduct necessitated a thorough examination and underscored the importance of maintaining integrity within the police force--
Explanation of the Judgment:
The above legal judgment or opinion regarding the dismissal of police officials from service due to misconduct. The decision, as articulated by Justice Yahya Afridi in what is described as the majority view, centers on several key allegations against the petitioners: unauthorized travel in a private car while in police uniform, without seeking or obtaining the necessary permission; abuse of their official position presumably for personal gain or to exert undue influence; tarnishing the reputation of the police department through their actions; and fabricating information to cover up their misconduct.
Justice Afridi's rationale for upholding the dismissal hinges on several pivotal points:
1. Unauthorized Travel in Police Uniform
The petitioners were found to have been traveling on a motorway in a private vehicle while in police uniform, without informing or seeking approval from their superiors. This act alone constitutes a breach of protocol and misuse of police uniform.
2. Arrest Following a Complaint
The fact that their arrest followed a complaint to the Motorway police suggests premeditation and a deliberate flouting of established procedures, rather than an incidental or minor oversight.
3. Abuse of Official Position
While the specifics of the abuse are not detailed in the excerpt, the context implies that the petitioners used their status as police officers to engage in behavior that was unethical, potentially illegal, and certainly contrary to the standards expected of their positions.
4. Impact on Police Department Reputation
Their actions not only breached internal codes of conduct but also served to undermine public confidence in the police force, tarnishing its reputation.
5. Misrepresentation to Conceal Misconduct
The attempt to fabricate information to cover up their misconduct indicates a consciousness of guilt and an intent to deceive, further eroding trust in their integrity and professionalism.
Justice Afridi's decision underscores the importance of maintaining high standards of conduct within the police force, reflecting a broader principle that those entrusted with upholding the law must themselves adhere to the highest ethical and professional standards. The judgment sends a clear message about the non-tolerance of misconduct within the ranks of the police, emphasizing the critical need for integrity, accountability, and transparency in the exercise of police duties. This decision not only serves as a deterrent against future misconduct but also aims to restore and maintain public trust in law enforcement agencies.
