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. 781/520 of 1985, decided on 28th April, 1986.
(a) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑
‑‑‑R. 4(2)(b)‑‑Reversion from officiating rank to substantive rank, held, would not amount to punishment.
(b) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑
‑‑‑S. 4(2)‑‑Officiating Inspector inflicted major penalty of reduction in rank of A.S.I and reduction of pay by two stages as Inspector‑‑Penalty order set aside and converted by Appellate Authority into that of reduction to substantive rank of Sub‑Inspector‑‑Removal from List F on basis of original major penalty order, also having been set aside by Appellate authority, held, was unjustified factually incorrect and unlawful.
Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Appellant.
A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent.
Muazziz Ahmed Khan, S.I. No. GL/51, presently posted as Security Officer, Chief Minister's House, 7, Club Road, Lahore 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 as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the order, dated 22‑8‑1984 and the order, dated 28‑6‑1984 passed by the Additional Inspector‑General and the order conveyed to the appellant by the Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Lahore, vide No. 14290/SB LHR, dated 7‑10‑1985, being illegal and without lawful authority, be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Officiating Inspector and posted as Traffic Inspector, Faisalabad District was served with a show‑cause notice by Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Sargodha Range, dated 10‑8‑1983 with 10 allegations. The appellant submitted a reply to the show‑cause notice. The Deputy, Inspector‑General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha examined the reply to the show‑cause notice and also afforded an opportunity of a personal hearing to the appellant on 10‑10‑1983. He found the appellant guilty of allegations and awarded the following major punishments, vide his Order No. 13701/13, dated 19‑10‑1983:
"(i) His pay is reduced by two stages as Inspector.
(ii) He is reduced in the rank of A.S.I., w.e.f 10‑10‑1983 resulting his automatic reversion from the rank of Officiating Inspector."
The appellant made an appeal to the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore. The Additional Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, vide his order, dated 28‑6‑1984 set aside the order of D.I.‑G. Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha reducing the appellant from Inspector to A.S.I. and at the same tame reducing his pay by 2 stages. Furthermore, the punishment of the appallant was modified as reversion from Officiating rank of Inspector to that of his substantive rank of Sub‑Inspector. Later on, another order was passed by Additional Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, vide his order, dated 22‑8‑1984, wherein the name of the appellant was removed from List 'F' with effect from the date of punishment awarded by the D.I.‑G. of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha i.e. 19‑10‑1983. The appellant made a representation to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore against the above order, dated 28‑6‑1984 and 22‑8‑1984, which was considered and rejected by the Additional Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab Lahore as conveyed by the Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Lahore Region, Lahore, vide his endorsement, dated 7‑10‑1985. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the parties i.e. Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Mr. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondent.
5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that order, dated 22‑8‑1984 of learned Additional Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore is factually incorrect. He has pointed out that through his order, dated 28‑6‑1984 the Additional Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore had himself set aside the order of D.I.‑G. Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha for reducing the appellant from Inspector to A.S.I. and at the same time reducing his pay by 2 stages. Further more, the punishment was modified to the reversion of the appellant from the officiating rank of Inspector to substantive rank of Sub‑Inspector. Thus, the major punishment awarded to the appellant was set aside by the Additional Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and the appellant was only reverted from the Officiating Rank of Inspector to that of substantive rank of Sub‑Inspector which is no punishment as mentioned under Rule 4(2)(b) of the Punjab Police (E&D) A Rules, 1975. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that, vide order, dated 22‑8‑1984 mentioned above, the Additional Inspector‑General of Police Punjab, Lahore has removed the name of the appellant from List 'F' on the basis that the appellant was awarded major punishment by the D.I.‑G. Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha, vide his order, dated 19‑10‑1983. This order of the D.1‑G. Police was himself set aside, vide order, dated 28‑6‑1984 by the Additional Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore. Thus, there have been some misunderstanding in issuing of impugned order, dated 22‑8‑1984 by the Additional Inspector‑General of Police as this order is in contravention of his order, dated 28‑6‑1984, mentioned above, whereby he had set aside the major punishment awarded to the appellant. It has been prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order, dated 22‑8‑1984 of the Additional Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore be set aside, as it is factually incorrect and unlawful.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has conceded that there has been some misunderstanding in issuing of the order, dated 22‑8‑1984 (Annexure A/2) by the Additional Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, as he had made the base of order, dated 19‑10‑1983 of the D.1.‑G. Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha for removing the name of the appellant from the List 'F', which order was not in the field and was set aside by the Additional Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, himself, vide his Order, dated 28‑6‑1984 while accepting the appeal of the appellant.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case carefully. The following major punishments were awarded to the appellant by Mr. Saadat Ali Sheikh, Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha, vide his order No. 13701/13 dated 19‑10‑1983:‑
"(i) His pay is reduced by two stages as Inspector.
(ii) He is reduced in the rank of A.S.I., w.e.f. 10‑10‑1983 resulting his automatic reversion from the rank of Officiating Inspector."
This order of the D.I.‑G. Police, Sargodha was set aside by the Additional Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, vide his order, dated 28‑6‑1984. The last para of the order is reproduced as follows:‑
"Hence in exercise of the powers vested in me, vide rule 12 of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975, I set aside the order of D.I.‑G./Sargodha reducing him from Inspector to A.S.I. and at the same time reducing his pay by 2 stages. The appellant is reverted from Officiating rank of Inspector to that of his substantive rank of Sub‑Inspector for his acting in a careless and tactless manner."
Another order was passed by the Additional Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, vide his order, dated 22‑8‑1984 (Annexure A/2) which is reproduced below:‑
"Having been involved in a case of mass‑discipline in Faisalabad District, Inspector Muazziz Ahmed Khan was charge‑sheeted by the D.I.‑G. of Police Sargodha Range, and was inflicted a major penalty of reduction in rank. In view of this punishment his name should have automatically been recommended by the D.l.‑G. Of Police, to be removed from List 'F', but through an error it was lost sight of. His name stands removed from List 'F' with effect from the date of punishment awarded by the D.I.‑‑G. of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha i.e. 19‑10‑1983."
(Sd.) (S.M.A.Hai),
Additional Inspector‑General of Police,
Punjab, Lahore."
The perusal of this order, dated 22‑8‑1984, makes it clear that this order has been passed under some misunderstanding by the Additional Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore who has passed this order on the basis of the punishment awarded by the D.I. ‑G. Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha, w.e.f. 19‑10‑1983. This order of the D.1.‑G. Police awarding major punishment to the appellant was himself set aside by the learned Additional Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and was no more in the field. Hence removing the name of the appellant from List 'F' on the basis of major punishment awarded, (vide order, dated 19‑10‑1983) by the D.I.‑G. Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha being not in the field, is unjustified, factually incorrect and is unlawful.,
8. The upshot of the above analysis of the case is that the impugned order, dated 22‑8‑1984 (Annexure A/2) of the Additional Inspector -General of Police, Punjab, Lahore in removing the name of the appellant from List 'F' is set aside. Hence the name of the appellant shall continue on List 'F' as it has never been removed. The impugned order (Annexure 'A/4') of Additional Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore conveyed by the Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Lahore Region, Lahore, vide his endorsement, dated 7‑10‑1985 is also modified to the above extent.
A. E. Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer