Find a Lawyer

---- R. 11--Disciplinary action against Police Official sent on deputa tion-Sub-Inspector serving on deputation with Police College Competent authority Superintendent of Police of respective district-Punishment of reversion to lower rank/dismissal from service awarded by Deputy Commandant of Police College, held, not sustainable-Service Tribunal setting aside impugned penalty order with direction that entire proceedings be forwarded to competent authority for decision afresh on merits after opportunity of hearing to official (appellant)-Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974),4

Malik Noor Muhammad Awan for Appellant.

.4. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN)

.--Attar Khan , ex-Sub Inspector Police Training College, Sihala, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Deputy Commandant, Police College, Sihala, Commandant, Police College, Sihala and the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order of the Deputy Commandant, dated 27th May, 1980 and of Commandant, dated 14th July, 1980, may be declared illegal, ultra Tires and not binding on the appellant.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the f appellant was appointed as Constable on the strength of Campbellpur District, passed his training course in 1969, at Hangoo (Kohat) and promoted as Head Constable. In the year 1973, he was again transferred to Mianwali and worked as Constable in List-C. In the year 1975, the appellant was-again promo ted on regular basis as Head Constable and was transferred to P. T. C. Sihala, on one step promotion as A. S. I. and thereafter worked for one year. Later on he was promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector because he showed lot of profit in the Canteen, which he was managing at that time. When the Deputy Commandant, P. T. C. Sihala was transferred and the new incumbent arrived the appellant was charger sheeted on 20th April, 1980, and also the second charge-sheet was served upon the appellant which according to the appellant was contradictory in nature. Mr. Ghulam Rasul P. D. S. P. was appointed as Enquiry Officer and when be objected to the appointment of said Ghulam Rasool, another show-cause notice was issued by the same Deputy Commandant P. T. C., Sihala on 3rd May, 1980. On 3rd May, 1980, he was depri ved of his two years service vide Annexure 'B'. He was reduced in rank to Head Constable and his name was removed from List C. The matter did not rest there and -ultimately the appellant was dismissed from service. All these orders were passed within a period of 20 days. He filed appeal before the Commandant, P T C., Sihala, which was also dismissed. 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 record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised point of jurisdic tion in this case and has submitted that as the appellant was transferred on deputation to Police Training College, Sihala, therefore, the Deputy Commandant P. T. C., Sihala was not competent to pass any final order of imposing major or minor penalty/punishment upon the appellant and what he was permitted to do, was to complete the inquiry so initiated against him and then to forward the same to the competent authority, which had lent the service of the said civil servant to the borrowing authority.

6. In order to find out whether the appellant was sent on deputa tion or not, we adjourned this case from time to time, to find original order of his deputation if any, and ultimately Annexure CW/I, was produced before us. The perusal of the said order, which has been placed on record of this case, reveals that the appellant now on deputation to P. R. T. C., Sargodha was transferred on deputation to Police Training College, Sihala on one step promotion as A. S. I. Drill Instructor vide order No. 3996-98/E, dated 15th February, 1977, by Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha, and copy of the same was sent to the Commandant, Police Training College, Sihala, Superintendent of Police, Mianwali and Officer Incharge, P.R.T.C: Sargodha. This document has now clinched the matter and has contro verted the claim of the respondents that the appellant was never sent on deputation and he was a regular member of the Police Force at Sihala, directly under the Commandant of the said Institution.

7. The law on this point is very clear as envisaged by rule 11 of the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975, as well as rule 10-of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975. According to these Rules, the stand of the learned counsel for the appellant is fully justified because these rule clearly support his stand.

8. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case, the impugned orders, dated 13^th May, 1980; 27th May, 1980 and 14th July, 1980 are hereby set aside with the directions that the entire inquiry proceedings be forwarded to the competent 'authority, which would be Superintendent of Police, Mianwali, in the case of appellant, who will decide the case on merits, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to him. It is further directed that the appellant be reinstated in service in order to clothe him with the status of a civil servant from the date, he has been so dismissed from service. The competent authority should also decide the fate of his emoluments of the intervening period. However, there will be no order as to costs.

A. E. Case remanded:

Find a Lawyer Near You

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