Find a Lawyer

Case No. 172 of 1979, decided on 13th January 1980.

‑‑‑ Police official‑Reversion from officiating in higher rank‑Made apparently on account of a complaint‑Contention that reversion not being a punishment no formality of show‑cause notice was required, in circumstances, rejected‑‑Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975.

In this else the appellant, who was an officiating Head Constable in the Police Department, was reverted as Constable by an; order dated 28‑11‑1978 issued by the Superintendent of Police (City), Lahore. Moreover, on a charge of misbehaving while giving evidence before the Summary Military Court No. 36, his two years' approved service was forfeited with permanent effect vide order dated 7‑3‑1979 of the S. P. (City). The appellant wants relief on both counts and wants the two orders to be set aside.

2. The appellant was heard. His contention was that the order of reversion was passed without giving him an opportunity to explain his case and therefore deserves to be struck down. In respect of the order regarding forfeiture of 2 years' service it was submitted on his behalf that the order was issued merely to placate the Summary Military Court which had complained to the Police Department about his allegedly arro gant behaviour and untruthful deposition as a. witness before that Court.

3. The record of the case was summoned and perused it was seen that the President of the Summary Military Court No. 36 wrote to the S. P. (City) on 9‑11‑1978 about the appellant's behaviour in Court. The complaint was that apart form adopting an arrogant and wilful attitude in Court, the appellant gave evidence which was patently against corroborated facts and this was improper on the part of a police officer. On 28‑11‑1978 the S. P. (City) reverted the appellant to the substantive rank of Constable. Later a departmental enquiry was also ordered into his conduct and as a result thereof his two years' service was forfeited, although the enquiry officer, who held him guilty, had advised that the punishment of reversion was enough and proper.

4. The contention of the Department was that reversion from an offici ating to substantive post is not punishment under the Police E & D Rules. The S. P. (City)'s order does not mention any charge and merely states that the appellant has been reverted because "he is not found fit to hold the present rank". Were this order unconnected with the behaviour of the appellant in the Summary Military Court, we would have nothing against it. In that case the penalty of forfeiture of service could be justified if it was otherwise justifiable on merits. Now, however, it is clear that the reversion of the appellant took place as a direct result of his performance in the Summary Military Court, as is evident from a reading of the record, and was intended to be a punishment. Therefore it should have been preceded by a show‑cause notice and the procedure prescribed for punishments gone through. In the final count, it appears that the appellant has been punished twice for the same act. Moreover, whereas the appellant's appeal to the D. I.‑G. calls for revoking both the order of reversion as well as that of forfeiture of two years' service, the D. I. G.'s order dated 28‑4‑1979 does not discuss at all the latter punishment and turns down the appeal in respect of the reversion only.

In view of the above, the case is remanded to the D. I.‑G., Lahore, with the direction that the proper procedure should be followed in effecting the appellant's reversion by way of punishment, and' the appellant's appeal regarding forfeiture of service, should be dealt with on its merits.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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