Find a Lawyer

Case No. 508 of 1981, decided on 19th May, 1982.

‑‑ R. 16.2 (2)‑Dismissal from service on account of conviction and sentence by competent Court of law‑Show‑cause notice‑Not required‑Police constable involved in case of misappropriation, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment by Summary Military Court‑Dismissal from service, in circumstances, held, not exception able on grounds of non‑issuance of show‑cause notice.

‑‑ S. 4‑Limitation‑Remedy sought before forum (civil Court) not competent to adjudge‑Appeal before Tribunal filed after 9 years of impugned order‑Dismissed as hopelessly time‑barred.

Idrees Ahmad Sheikh for Appellant,

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema District Attorney for Respondents.

. ‑Nazir Ahmad ex‑Foot Constable has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Province of Punjab through Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and ‑Superintendent of Police, Sialkot, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that. the impugned order by which he was dismissed by the competent authority respondent No. 2, be set aside and he be reinstated in service with all back benefits and allow ances and pay since 26th June, 1971.

3. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was working as Foot Constable at Police Station Narowal, he was involved in a case of misappropriation of gold which was going to be smuggled to India. A case F. I. R. No. 42, dated 16th March, 1971, under section 406/409, P. P. C. and 16 M. L. R. was registered against the appellant at the said Police Station. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year R. I and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 by the Summary Military Court Lahore on 26th June, 1971. The appellant was released from jail on 6th January, 1972 under the proclamation of the President of Pakistan which granted remission of sentence to convicts. A number of co‑accused alongwith him were reinstated in service by the competent authority after scrutiny of their record on the ground that they were granted pardon by the President of Pakistan. On 6th March, 1979, the appellant filed a civil suit against . the respondent but the same was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot, on 29th May, 1980. Feeling aggrieved by the order of Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot, a Civil Appeal No. 334 of 1980 was filed on 6th July, 1980, which was later on dismissed on 7th June, 1981, by Ch. Faiz Aslam, District Judge, Sialkot. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the para-wise comments so filed by respondent No. 2 in ibis case.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of dismissal passed against the appellant was unlawful as the appellant was not given any personal hearing nor any show‑cause notice was given to him in this behalf. He has challenged the summary dismissal of the appellant as illegal.

6. We have perused the impugned order and find that the same is passed under rule 16.2 (2) of the Police Rules which empowers the competent authority to dismiss the appellant when it has been found that he was convicted and duly sentenced by competent Court of Law. In this manner the arguments of the appellant's counsel that no show‑cause notice/ was given to him, is hardly tenable. The order of conviction of the appellant by the Summary Military Court Sialkot was conveyed to S. P. Sialkot on 29th December, 1972 vide I.‑G. P. Punjab Lahore's endorse ment No. 30014/M‑II, dated 20th December, 1972 and the appellant was dismissed from service from 26th June, 1971 in accordance with the pro vision of Police Rules so mentioned above, His appeal against the order of dismissal was rejected by the D. I.‑G./Lahore Range Lahore and I.‑G. P. Punjab, Lahore. His mercy petition addressed to the President of Pakistan was also filed. No exception can be taken against the procedure adopted by the respondent as the rules in this behalf are quite clear. Moreover, the appeal of the appellant is hopelessly time‑barred as he. has challenged the impugned order of 1972, full after 9 years and in between has been seeking remedies before forums which were not competent to adjuge his case.

7. The result is we do not find any merit in this appeal and proceed to dismiss the same on this score.

There will be no order as to costs.

A. E. 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.