Find a Lawyer

Case No. 636/523 of 1983, decided on 31st May, 1984.

‑‑‑S. 4 ka;‑Appeal before Tribunal‑Limitation ‑Within 30 days from date of communication of final order‑Police official aggrieved of order of discharge from service passed by Superintendent of Police and after rejection of representation by Deputy Inspector‑General of Police submitted appeal to Inspector‑General of Police which lying yet undecided‑Appeal filed before Tribunal not within 30 days after expiry of 90 days from date of appeal to Inspector‑General of Police Appeal, in circumstances, held, not maintainable and appellant official, held, will have to wait to exhaust departmental remedy in deciding his case finally by Inspector‑General of Police.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑Muhammad Yousaf, Ex‑Cons table No. 294 of Sargodha District has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Superin tendent of Police, Sargodha, the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police; Sargodha Range, Sargodha and the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab,' Lahore as respondents.

By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 25th August, 1980 as well as the order, dated 31st August, 1981 be set aside and the appellant be re‑instated in service with full back benefits of pay and allowances etc.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was issued a show -cause notice in that while posted at Police Lines, Sargodha alongwith 4 other private persons attacked his opposite‑party near the District Jail, Sargodha and assaulted one Muhammad Riaz with sotas and bricks. A case F. I. R. No. 195, dated 25th May, 1984 under section 307/148/149, P. P. C. was registered at Police Station Cantt against him. The appellant being member of the disciplined force should not have taken part in this open fight. This amounted to misconduct which has made him liable for departmental action. The appellant was afforded an opportunity to defend himself. He put up his written explanation and was heard in person, in the orderly room on 24th August, 1980 by the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha. But his written as well as oral explanation was found unsatisfactory. The appellant was discharged from service under Police Rule 12.21. The appellant made representation to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Sargodha Range. Sargodha which was rejected vide his order, dated 31st August, 1981. The appellant made an appeal to the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore on 14th September, 1981 which has not so far been disposed of. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. Mr. M. A. Riaz, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents.

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was proceeded through a show‑cause notice against the appel lant and discharged from service under Police Rules 12.21 on the basis of a case registered against him under section 307/148;149, P. P. C. on 25th May, 1980. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the discharge of the appellant under Police Rule 12.21 is unlawful, as this rule is not applicable in his case. The appellant was proceeded as a result of registration of a case against him, hence, he should have been dealt with under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 and the proceedings should have been conducted against him under these rules and he could not be discharged from service under Police Rules 12.21 which had become redundant on the enforcement of Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that Syed Sherazi, Magistrate Section 30, Sargodha who had tried the appellant under section 307/34, P. P. C. has acquitted the appellant of the charge under section 249, Cr. P. C. vide his judgment, dated 28th January, 1981 (at Annexure 13'). It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that very charge under which the appellant was punished, has fallen on the ground, on the honourable acquittal of the appellant, as per judgment, dated 28th January, 1981 of the learned trial Magistrate. Thus, the appellant has been punished arbitrarily and the impugned orders cannot be sustained. He has prayed that the impugned orders be quashed, set aside and the appellant be re‑instated in service with all back benefits.

6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has taken a prelimi nary legal objection. He has submitted that the appellant had filed an appeal before the Inspector‑Genera's of Police, Punjab, Lahore on 14th September, 1981, which is still undecided. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as P L D 1983 S C 436, he has pointed out that the appellant was required to submit his appeal to this Tribunal after the expiry of 90 days of the date of submission of the above appeal that too within 30 days, which he has failed to do so, alternatively, now he will have to wait for the final decision of his pending appeal before the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore. Thus, the appeal is not competent before the Tribunal.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and are in agreement with the view point put forth before us by the learned District Attorney that the appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal as the appellant has failed to submit this appeal to this Tribunal after an expiry of a period of 90 days of submission of his appeal to the Inspector‑General of Police; Punjab, Lahore, dated 14th September, 1981. Now, the appellant will have to wait to exhaust the departmental remedy in deciding his case finally by the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as required under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.

8. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the appeal is not competent before the Tribunal as the appellant has yet to obtain the final order from the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as required under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The appeal is disposed of being not maintainable. However, the appellant can approach this Tribunal in due course of time if he is not satisfied with the final order of the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore.

There are no orders as to costs.

A. E. Appeal held not maintainable.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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