Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 891 of 1958, decided on 31st October, 1961.

‑lnspector General of Police can enhance penalty Imposed by Superintendent of Police although no appeal has been preferred to him against order imposing penalty.

‑Operation of Rules saved by S. 243, Government of India Act, 1935 and Art. 224, Constitution of Pakistan (1956)‑Notification No. 2/21/51‑Kar., dated 4‑1‑56-- Does not apply to members of police force.

The members of the subordinate rank of police force in Karachi in respect of conditions of their service are governed by the Rules of the Bombay District Police Manual and Notification No. 2/21/51 Kar., dated 4‑1‑56 does not apply to the members of the police force. Section 243 of the Government of India Act, 1935 governed the conditions of service of the subordinate rank of various police forces in Pakistan and Article 224 of the Constitu tion of Pakistan, 1956 also saves the rules of the Bombay District Police Manual.

Noorul Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan P L D 1956 S C (Pak.) 331 ref.

Manzoor Ali Khan for Petitioner.

Muhammad Ali Saeed for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 31^stOctober 1961.

.‑This is a petition by the petitioner praying for issue of a writ of certiorari directing the quashing of the order of the petitioner's dismissal from service passed by the respondent and a consequent issue of a writ of mandamus that the petitioner be reinstated in service.

2. The facts giving rise to the petition may briefly be stated:‑The petitioner was an Armed Police Constable in Karachi Police. He was prosecuted for gambling by Jamshed Quarters Police, Karachi, but was acquitted on 6‑2‑1957. Departmental proceedings were taken against the petitioner after his acquittal and the Superintendent of Police Head Quarters by his order No. SSC/HQ/5496/57, dated 22nd June 1957, Imposed upon the petitioner the penalty by way of reducing his pay from Rs. 42 to Rs. 40 per month for a period of one year. The petitioner did not file any appeal against this order. The Inspector‑General of Police issued Order No. 5732/F/101/58 dated 31st March 1958 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the penalty of reduction in pay be not enhanced to the penalty of the petitioner's dismissal. The petitioner showed cause on 6th April 1.958. The Inspector‑General of Police did not accept the cause shown as sufficient and by his Order No. 7303/F‑107/58 dated 23rd April 1958 dismissed the petitioner from service.

3. The points taken before us by the learned Advocate for the petitioner were : (a) that the order of dismissal of the petitioner by the Inspector‑General of Police, when no appeal had been preferred to him, was illegal and ultra vires ; and (b) that the rules of the Bombay District Police Manual under which the Inspector‑General of Police appears to have acted ceased to be operative in regard to the conditions of service of the members of the subordinate rank of police force in Karachi by Notification No. 2/21/51‑Kar., dated 4th February 1.956. This Notification reads:

"Ministry of Interior.

Karachi, the 4th February 1956.

No. 2/21/51‑Kar.‑In exercise of the powers conferred by section 241 (2) (a) of the Government of India Act, 1935, read with Article 6 (1) of the Pakistan (Establishment of the Federal Capital) Order, 1948, the Governor‑General is pleased to direct that all persons appointed or employed fn connection with the affairs of the Chief Commissioner's Province of Karachi shall, in respect of conditions of their service, be governed by the rules framed by the Governor‑General for persons serving In connection with the affairs of the Federation subject to such modifications as may be made by the Governor‑General."

4. We find that there is no substance in both these conten tions for the following reasons:

(a) Rule 1291 of the Bombay Police Manual is a short answer to the contention. Rule 1291 reads:

"1291. (1) The Superintendent shall forward every month to the Inspector‑General of Police through the Range Deputy Inspector‑General a return of punishments inflicted. In reviewing the returns the Inspector‑General may call for and examine the papers in any case of punishment where an officer appears to him to have been improperly punished, and may, confirm, reduce, enhance, alter or cancel the punishment Inflicted"

5. (b) Notification No. 2/21/51 Kar. does not apply to, the members of the police force. Section 243 of the Government of India Act, 1935 governed the conditions of service of the subordinate rank of various police forces fn Pakistan. Section 243 reads:

"243. Special provisions as to police‑Notwithstanding any thing in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, the conditions of service of the subordinate ranks of the various police forces in Pakistan shall be such as may be determined by or under the Acts relating to those forces respectively."

The Supreme Court in Noorul Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan (P L D 1956 S C (Pak.) 331), has held that:

"The opening words of section 243 Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter' are significant. They mean that the constitutional guarantees contained in the fore going sections, viz., sections 240, 241 and 242, can be destroyed or diminished in the case of the police force by making rules under Police Acts contrary to the statutory provisions contained in the above sections. If no such rules exist, the statutory guarantees must have their full force and play."

Article 224 of the late Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan also clearly saves the rules of the Bombay Police Manual from their operation. Article 224 reads

"224‑(1) Notwithstanding the repeal of the enactments men tioned in Article 221, and save as is otherwise expressly provided in the Constitution all laws (other than those enactments, includ ing Ordinances, Orders In Council, Orders, rules, bye‑laws, regulation, Notifications and other legal instruments in force in Pakistan or in any part thereof, or having extra‑territorial validity, immediately before the Constitution Day, shall, so far as applicable and with the necessary adaptations, continue in force until altered, repealed or amended by the appropriate legislature or other competent authority."

6. It is, therefore, apparent that the provisions of the Government of India Act and the rules framed under the Bombay District Police Manual Act, 1890 continue to apply to the subordinate police force. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not show that these provisions in the Government of India Act or the late Constitution had been altered or repealed or amended by any competent authority. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

K. B. A.

Petition 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.