Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Case No. 366/266 of 1983, decided on 14th January, 1984.
‑‑‑ Police Head Constable ignored in selection for Lower School Course‑‑Representation against non‑selection accepted by Inspector‑General of Police, his upper age limit relaxed and Head Constable allowed to join course‑‑Subsequent order passed by I.‑G. Police after commencement of Course refusing earlier permission without justification‑‑Subsequent order declared by Tribunal invalid being not based on principles of justice, fairplay and equity.
‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Appeal filed before Tribunal without obtaining final order from department, held, premature and not competent.
Faqir Muhammad Khokhar for Appellant.
A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.
‑‑Muhammad Hanif, Police Head Constable No. 2199, Punjab Reserve Police, Wing‑A, Yassarabad (Chauharkana), District Sheikhupura has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, the Commandant, Punjab Reserve Police, Yassarabad (Chauharkana), Tehsil and District Sheikhupura and the Deputy Commandant, Punjab Reserve Police, Yassarabad (Chauharkana) Tehsil and District Sheikhupura as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 6‑7‑1983 and consequent removal of the name from List 'B' vide Order Book No. 555/83, dated 10‑7‑1983 by the respondents be set, aside. He has also prayed that the respondents be directed for the selection of the appellant for Lower School Course and the appellant be entitled to maintain his seniority, rank and other rights over those constables who were junior to him and the rights of the appellant which he, but for the impugned order, would have secured had he not been ignored for Lower School Course on his due date be protected.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Muhammad Hanif, was recruited on 3‑7‑1975 as Constable in P.R.P. After completing his recruiting course he was temporarily promoted as Head Constable on 15‑7‑1979. On 28‑8‑1979 his name was brought on List 'B‑I'. His name was ignored to be selected for Lower School Course. The appellant filed a representation to the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore. His representation was considered and accepted and relaxation in upper age limit to the extent of 4 months and two days was accorded to him to join the Lower School Course commencing on 1‑7‑1983. However, another order was passed by the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, dated 6‑7‑1983 wherein it was decided that the appellant may not be sent for Lower School Course which commenced on 1‑7‑1983. The appellant's name was also removed from the List 'B‑1' on 6‑7‑1983 by the order of the Deputy Commandant, P.R.P. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the appellant's counsel that the I.‑G. Police, Punjab had accepted the representation of the appellant on 2‑6‑1983 duly forwarded by the Commandant, P.R.P. whereby he was allowed to join the Lower School Course commencing on 1‑7‑1983. The appellant was not allowed to join this course by the Commandant P.R.P. against the clear cut order of the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore. Yet another order was obtained from Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore for not sending the appellant to Lower School Course, much after the date of commencing of the course i.e. on 6‑7‑1983, when the course had already commenced on 1‑7‑1983. Thus, the order, dated 6‑7‑1983, passed on bilated stage, is not, in accordance with the principles of justice, fairplay, equity and even, it is morally not a correct order. He prayed that the second order be set aside being unlawful and unjustified. Similarly removal of the name of the appellant from List 'B‑I' is not a valid order as the appellant was not heard in person and he was not given an opportunity to defend himself and his name was removed from List 'B‑1' arbitrarily. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the name of the appellant could also not be removed from List 'B‑I' as required by rule 13.8‑A of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. Thus, the removal of the appellant's name from List 'B‑I' by respondents is arbitrary and against the Rules.
5. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore can take back his earlier order regarding selection of the appellant for Lower School Course as he is competent to do so. He has also referred to the detailed order of the Deputy Commandant, Punjab Reserve Police removing the appellant's name from List 'B‑I' and has submitted that this is a detailed order. The appellant was removed from List 'B‑I' after giving him a show‑cause notice. Thus, he was given an opportunity to defend himself and put up his defence. Concluding his arguments, the learned District Attorney has submitted that both the impugned orders are valid, justified and lawful orders, hence, no exception can be taken against these orders.
6. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record in this case. We have perused the order No. 2164/T‑II, dated 2‑6‑1983 of Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore deciding the representation (against non‑selection for Lower School Course) of the appellant which was sent to him by the Commandant, P.R.P. vide his Memo. No. 3780/E‑II, dated 11‑5‑1983. This order clearly shows that the representation of the appellant was considered and accepted, also relaxation in upper age limit to the extent of 4 months and two days was accorded to the appellant to join the Lower School Course commencing on 1‑7‑1983. Thus, this .order was passed after application of due mind. The record produced by the respondents shows that another order was passed by the I.‑G. Police, Punjab, Lahore vide his No. 2371/T‑II, dated 30‑6‑1983, wherein again orders were issued to the Commandant, P.R.P., to comply with the orders already issued on 2‑6‑1983 mentioned above. This was with reference to the Commandant, P.R.P. Memo. No. 465/PA, dated 27‑6‑1983, However, another order was passed unilaterally on 6‑7‑1983, by I.‑G. Police, Punjab, Lahore, directing that the appellant may not be sent for the Lower School Course which commenced on 1‑7‑1983. This order was not based on the principles of justice, fairplay and equity, keeping in view that course had already commenced on 1‑7‑1983 and this order was passed on 6‑7‑1983. This order is also incomplete, gives no valid and sound reasons for nullifying his two well‑considered previous orders allowing the appellant to join the Lower School Course commencing on 1‑7‑1983 and also relaxing his upper age limit.
7. The result of the above discussion is that we consider that the subsequent order, dated 6‑7‑1983 for not sending the appellant for Lower School Course which commenced on 1‑7‑1983, the permission which was allowed validly by the I.‑G. Police, Punjab, Lahore through his earlier two orders, is not a correct, lawful order and is liable to be set aside.
8. As far as the request of the appellant/ appellant's counsel for setting aside the Order Book No. 555/83, dated 10‑7‑1983, removal of the appellant's name from List 'B‑I', we have gone through the order of removal passed by the Deputy Commandant, Punjab Reserve Police. The appellant should have submitted a representation to the higher authorities against this order before filing an appeal to this Tribunal. Thus, the appeal of the appellant is premature on this account as he has filed this appeal to the Punjab Service Tribunal without obtaining a final order as per requirements of section 4(1) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
9. The upshot of the above analysis of the case is that the impugned order No. 2378/T, dated 6‑7‑1983 passed by the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore is set aside, not being a valid order and not based on the principles of justice, fairplay and equity. Thus, the order No. 2164/T‑II, dated 2‑6‑1983 and order No. 2371/T‑II, dated 30‑6‑1983, allowing the appellant to join the Lower School Course and relaxation in upper age limit shall remain in the field and in operation. As far the impugned order regarding removal of the appellant's name from List 'B‑I' is concerned, the appeal of the appellant is premature as he has filed the appeal to this Tribunal without obtaining final order and thus, this appeal of the appellant is not competent before us. The appeal of the appellant is accepted to the extent, mentioned above.
There will be no order as to costs.
M. I.
Appeal partly accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer