Find a Lawyer

Case No. 113/419 of 1979, decided on 6th January, 1980.

‑‑ R. 4(2)(b)‑Officiating A. S. I.‑Reversion as Head Constable--- Not a punishment‑Order passed by competent authority that "(appellant) is unfit to retain his present rank and is reverted to his substantive post of Head Constable"‑Not exceptionable‑Appeal against such order dismissed by, Service Tribunal‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

This is an appeal by. Rana Allah Ditta against his reversion from A. S. I. to Head Constable in the Police Department. The appellant was reverted vide order dated 18th April, 1978 of the S. P. (City), Lahore. His representation to the D. I.‑G. Police. Lahore, and to the I.‑G. P. were rejected on 21st November, 1978 and 5th March, 1979 respectively.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant while on duty in the Lohari Gate Police Station on 25th September, 1977, was charged with refusing to allow Constable Mohammad Arshad of the Special Branch to make an important official call and with failing to submit a daily diary about a conflict between the adherents of two political parties. For this, he was duly charge‑sheeted, and after the necessary formalities issued a warning on 8th May, 1978 to perform his duties properly. However, he was also reverted from the post of officiating A. S. I. to Head Constable, against which action the appellant is before us.

3. We have heard the parties. It is contended on behalf of the Police Department that the reversion is within the rules and is not a punish ment because the appellant was only an officiating A. S. I. and under rule 4(2)(b) of the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975, reversion does not constitute a penalty: For his misdemeanour, the appellant was only administered a warning to perform his duties properly. Therefore, there was no cause for appeal to the Tribunal in the case of reversion. On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that the reversion was directly related to the charges which resulted in a warning and since this reversion took place without giving the appellant an opportunity to show cause and present his side of the case, it was against the principles of natural justice and, therefore, void and illegal.

4. We have perused the record of the Case. As a result we are convinced that the proceedings, with regard to the administration of a warning for not allowing the Special Police Constable to make a telephone call and not submitting the daily diary about a conflict between two political groups were taken properly. As for the reversion, we notice that the Order of S. P. (City) dated 18th April 1978 does not mention the incident which was the subject of the proceedings ending in a warning, and merely states that the appellant "is unfit to retain his present rank and is reverted to his substantive rank of Head Constable". As such we see no reason to question the impugned order and consequently dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.