Find a Lawyer

Case No. 749/113 of 1984, decided on 21st April, 1985.

‑‑‑Rr. 16 to 33‑‑Promotion list‑‑Removal from‑‑Constable on List C‑1‑ Imposed major penalty of reduction of pay by two stages‑‑Removal from List C‑1. in circumstances, held, valid, legal and unexceptionable.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

Mr. Muhammad Aslam, Naib‑Muharir, Police, Lines, Jhang has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 as mentioned above.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 10‑3‑1983, 4‑6‑1983, 20‑11‑1983 and the final order, dated 31‑7‑1984/30‑8‑1984 be set aside and his pay as well as List C‑1 be restored.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service as Constable in March, 1963. He was admitted to promotion list 'C‑1' w.e.f. 1‑10‑1972 and was promoted as Head Constable w.e:f. 1‑6‑1973. The appellant was Moharrir at Police Station Chiniot in March, 1981, when a case F.I.R. No. 151, dated 19‑3‑1981 was entered in the F.I.R. Register by him by erasing entries and making changes in the daily diary register as well as on the F.I.R. The appellant was served with a show‑cause notice by the Superintendent of Police, Jhang on 13‑4‑1981. The appellant submitted reply to the show‑cause notice, which was considered unsatisfactory by the S.P. Jhang, and dismissed him from service w.e.f. 19‑3‑1981. The appellant submitted an appeal to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha, who taking the lenient view, vide his order, dated 10‑3‑1982, converted the punishment of dismissal into reduction in pay by two stages. The period spent out of service by the appellant was treated as leave without pay. Consequently, the Superintendent of Police, Jhang, removed the appellant from promotion list C‑1, vide his order, dated 4‑6‑1983, on account of the appellants' having major punishment i.e., reduction in pay by two stages to his credit. The appellant made an appeal against this order to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad, Range, Faisalabad, which was rejected, vide order, dated 20‑11‑1983. The appellant made an appeal to the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore which was also rejected, vide Additional Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore order, dated 31‑7‑1984. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties i.e. Mr. M.A. Riaz, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney on behalf of the respondents.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the 'appellant that the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha, accepted the appellant's plea that the appellant had made necessary adjustment in the Daily diary as well as in the F.I.R. Register in the interest of the cases. It was also appreciated that this fact was in the knowledge of Senior Officers of the Police Station and the Sub‑Division. Accordingly the charge of ulterior motive and helping the accused party was dropped but the appellant was held guilty of violation of provision of Police Rules on the subject. It has been pointed out by the appellant's counsel that consequently the appellant was reinstated in service by the D.I.‑G. Police. Sargodha vide his order, dated 10‑3‑1982 in view of his 18 years service and good record of service. However, the punishment was converted into reduction of pay by two stages. It has further been argued by the appellant's counsel that the appellant had already been admitted to List 'C‑1' and had been working as Head Constable since 1‑6‑1973. The appellant's service record as Head Constable after his reinstatement had also been quite good. After his reinstatement the appellant earned three commendation certificates with cash reward. The appellant was allowed to continue to be borne on list C‑1 after his reinstatement and infliction of the aforesaid penalty of reduction in pay. But, after more than one year of his reinstatement in service and infliction of the penalty, the respondent No. 1 had removed the appellant from List 'C‑1' arbitrarily and without any justification. He has prayed that the appellant be allowed to continue to be on promotion List C‑1 after his reinstatement as per order of the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha, and the orders of the respondent No. 1, for removing him from List C‑1, being unlawful be quashed.

6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and has stoutly resisted the above plea of the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha had already taken a very lenient view in reinstating the appellant and converting the punishment from dismissal to reduction of pay by two stages vide his order, dated 10‑3‑1982. Reduction of pay by two stages is a major punishment and according to the Police Rules 16‑33, the appellant had to be removed from List C‑1 on account of major punishment so awarded' to him. Thus, the orders of the respondents are competent and valid orders and no exception can be taken against the same.

7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have perused the order of the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha, dated 10‑3‑1982. This order is clear that keeping in view the good service record of the appellant, D.I.‑G., Police, Sargodha Range, took a lenient view, converted the punishment of dismissal into reduction in pay by two stages. Reduction in pay by two stages, being a major punishment, Superintendent of Police, Jhang, was justified to remove the appellant from promotion List C‑1 under Police Rules 16‑33. Thus, no exception can be taken against the impugned orders which are valid and lawful orders.

8. The result of the above discussion of the case is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.

There are no orders 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.