Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Case No. 244 of 1982, decided on 14th October, 1982.
‑ R. 16.2 (2)‑Constable dismissed from service due to conviction and imprisonment for six months‑Held : Constable having been convicted to imprisonment of more than one month was liable to be dismissed.
‑‑R. 16.2 (2)‑Interpretation of statutes ‑ Sanctity of R. 16.2 (2), Police Rules, 1934 challenged for non‑mention of source of promulgation‑Held: Rules derive life from S. 7 of Police Act, 1861 and rules made under statutes are considered valid unless repugnant to statute itself.
Syed Latif Hussain Jafery for Appellant.
Malik Azam Rasool for the State.
‑Ex‑Constable Ashiq Hussain has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which be has impleaded the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan, the Superintendent of Police, Multan, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order of the respondent be set aside and the appellant be re‑instated in service with effect from the date of his dismissal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while posted to District Police Lines, Multan, enticed away the wife of one Muhammad Bux. The latter filed a private complaint against the appellant under sections 494 and 497, P. P. C. The trial Court vide order, dated 31st July, 1976 convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo one year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. The Constable went in appeal against the order of the trial Court which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge who while upholding the c5nviction reduced the sentence to 6 months' R. I. The Superintendent of Police, Multan, vide his order, dated 12th July, 1980 dismissed the appellant under Police Rule 16.2 (2). The appellant went in appeal before the D, I.‑G., Multan Range who vide his order dated 7th July, 1981 upheld the dismissal order passed by the S. P. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Syed Latif Iussain J.:frer , Advocate as well as the learned District Attorney assisted
5. The learned counsel has submitted that the penalty awarded to the appellant was severe, keeping in view the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension. It has been further argued on legal plan that the order was not maintainable. The learned counsel has ela borated his point of view by submitting that the Police rules have been framed under sections 7 and 12 of the Police Act, 1861 and the appellant was dismissed under Police Rule 16.2 (2) but there was nothing to show whether this rule was framed under section 7 by the Provincial Govern ment or under section 12 by the Inspector‑General of Police. In this way he has challenged the very sanctity of Police Rule 16.2 (2).
6. We have given our anxious thought to the legal point so raised as well as the merits of this case.
7. With regard to the merits of this case we have no hesitation to hold that once the appellant stood convicted to an imprisonment of more than one month by the Court of law, he would be liable to be dismissed under rule 16.2 (2). Therefore, the action taken by the S. P. as well as the D. I.‑G. was fully justified.
8.With regard to the legal point, this Tribunal called upon the learned counsel to show any specific authority which may indicate that by not mentioning the source of promulgation of any such rule, the rule would be void. The learned counsel admitted that he was unable to produce any such authority. When confronted with this situation the learned counsel requested the Tribunal to call upon the respondent to submit their comments so that he may seek guidance from the same.
9. We have gone through the comments offered by Mr. Asif Ali, A. I.‑G. Legal, on behalf of Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, who has submitted his elaborate comments defending the sanctity of the rule in question and we fully agree with his exposition.
10. The fact of the matter is that the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 were issued under the authority of Provincial Government under sections 7 and 12 of Police Act V of 1861. The rules framed under section 7 of the Police Act are under the authority of Provincial Government and deal with the appointment, dismissal etc. of subordinate Police officers. In this way we are very clear in our mind that these rules derive their life from section of the Police Act. The Police Rules framed by Inspector. General of Police are always subject to the approval of the Provincial Government and emanate from section 12 of the Police Act, 1861. We have also seen that the Police Rules Vols. I, II and III have also been issued under the autho rity of the Provincial Government. It is well‑settled principle of law of, interpretation of statutes that rules made under the statutes are always considered to be valid unless and until these are repugnant to any other law in force, i. e. the statute itself.
11. In view of above we do not find any merits in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. However, there will be no orders as to costs.
M. I. Appeal dismissed,
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer