Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 57 of 1977, decided on 15th April, 1979.

Sind Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)‑---

‑-----S. 4 read with Sind Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1975‑Seniority‑Appellant instead of filing an appeal against order of successor I.‑G. Police making representation to same L.G. Police and after its rejection making representation to Home Secretary and praying that represen tation made to Home Secretary be treated as appeal for purpose of filing appeal before Tribunal‑‑Rules, however, laying down appeal to be filed to next higher authority which in this case would be Chief Secretary‑Since no appeal filed within one month of original order, same, held, cannot be dealt with on merits, in circumstances,.

This is an appeal under section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973, against the order of the Inspector General of Police altering the seniority of the appellant in the F' list which is prepared for the purpose of those Police Officers who are found fit for promotion.

The appellant joined the Police Department as Assistant Sub‑Inspector of Police on 1‑10‑1953. He was promoted as Sub‑Inspector of Police on 10‑6‑1955 and was subsequently confirmed from the same date. In the year 1957 he was awarded punishment by way of reduction in pay. Consequently his promotion was deferred with result that he has lost his seniority. He made number of representations and the Inspector‑General of Police by order dated 10‑2‑1975 admitted him to the F' list with effect from 16‑8‑1965 and thereby he was assigned position below Mr. Zafar Iqbal and above Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan respondent No. 4. Subsequently another Inspector‑General of Police who succeeded the previous Inspector‑General of Police re‑opened the case and set aside the order of his predecessor and placed the appellant in his original position by order dated 8‑2‑1976. By this order the appellant was placed in his original position, i. e. as Selection Grade Sub‑Inspector of Police with effect from 1‑4‑1969 and in list with effect from 12‑10‑1971 instead of 1‑4‑1969 granted by the previous Inspector‑General of Police. Aggrieved by this the appellant made a representation dated 22‑10‑1976 to the same Inspector‑General of Police but it was rejected by order dated 4‑7-1977 said to have been received by him on 1‑8‑1977. After rejection of the representation he made another representation dated 30‑8‑1977 to the Home Secretary and on the following day, i. e. 31‑8‑1977 he presented the present appeal to this Tribunal challenging the order passed by the Inspector‑General of Police. It appears that subsequent to the appeal filed in this Tribunal, the Home Secretary rejected the representation on merits and, therefore, an application dated 6‑2‑1979 was made to this Tribunal that in case the order passed by the Inspector‑General of Police was not treated to be final then the present appeal be treated as an appeal against the order of the Home Secretary decided on merits.

From the statement of facts it is clear that the appeal suffers from some legal infirmities. The first thing to notice is that the appellant instead of filing an appeal against the order of successor Inspector‑General of Police passed on 8‑9‑1978 he made the representation to the same Inspector General of Police. There is no such representation provided by law. Since the Departmental appeal was not filed against the order of Inspector‑General of Police this appeal could not be maintainable. In this connection it was urged that according to the Punjab Police Rules the decision of the Inspector General of Police was final and, therefore, the representation 'was made t him. Support was also sought from the reply dated 24‑10‑1973 to hi previous representation. Indeed this was the position of law prior to the passing of the Sind Civil Service Act, 1973, but according to the rules called as Sind Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1975, framed under the aforesaid act the appeal was to be filed to the next higher authority which in this case would have been the Chief Secretary. Consequently there can be no question that the appellant was said to have been misled. It cannot be said that he was an illiterate person. Even otherwise ignorance of law is no excuse. In this view I am fortified by the very conduct of the appellant finding that he was required to made representation to the higher authority he made the represen tation to the Home Secretary and an application dated 6‑2‑1979 was made praying that the present appeal be treated as an appeal against the order of Home Secretary rejecting the representation.

Even the appeal to the Home Secretary is of no avail to the appellant as in the first place the Home Secretary is lower in grade than the Inspector General of Police and therefore, the Appellate Authority was the Chief Secretary. Secondly even if the Home Secretary could be treated to be the appellate authority yet the appeal was to be filed after the order passed b the Home Secretary and the appeal filed against the order of the Inspector General of Police cannot be treated to be an appeal against the order of the Home Secretary. In fact the separate appeal had to be filed within the period of limitation. Moreover, the original order upsetting the seniority was passed by the Inspector‑General of Police on 9‑9‑1976 whereas the appeal to the Home Secretary was on 30‑8‑1977, i. e. after about 11 months although the departmental appeal was to be filed within one month of the original order.

In view of this legal position it is not necessary to deal with the matter on merits.

In result the appeal is dismissed.

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.