PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICER NWFP and others vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the NWFP Service Tribunal, which had set aside an order transferring a Head Constable and removing his name from promotion list "D". The core legal question was whether the competent authority could remove a police official's name from a promotion list without providing a show-cause notice or an opportunity for a hearing. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's decision. The Court held that the removal of the respondent's name from the promotion list was unlawful because it was based on unsubstantiated oral complaints and was executed without adhering to the principles of natural justice. The Court affirmed that the inclusion of a name on a promotion list creates a vested right for future advancement, which cannot be withdrawn arbitrarily. Consequently, the key principle laid down is that the principle of audi alteram partem must be strictly observed; a police official's name cannot be removed from a promotion list without issuing a show-cause notice and providing a fair opportunity of hearing.
- Can a police official's name be removed from a promotion list without providing a show-cause notice?
- Does the inclusion of a name on a police promotion list create a vested right?
- Can oral complaints serve as a valid legal basis for removing a police official from a promotion list?
Ijaz-ul-Hassan, J.--Through instant petition, Provincial Police Officer, NWFP, Peshawar and others, petitioners, seek leave to appeal from a judgment of the NWFP Service Tribunal, Peshawar, dated 1.1.2009 accepting appeal preferred by Muhammad Nawaz, respondent, and setting aside order dated 4.7.2008, whereby respondent was transferred from District Police Nowshera to District Police Kohistan and his name was removed from promotion list "D".
2. Facts of the case in brief are, that while serving as Head Constable in the District Police, Nowshera, respondent was transferred to District Police, Kohistan and name of respondent was removed from promotion list "D", vide order dated 4.7.2008. The respondent feeling aggrieved, filed departmental representation and on its rejection vide order dated 26.8.2008, preferred appeal before learned Tribunal, which has been accepted through the judgment impugned herein.
3. Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Qaiser Rashid, Additional Advocate-General, NWFP submitted that name of the respondent has been validly removed from list "D" by the competent authority; that the impugned judgment suffers from legal infirmities as learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction to interfere in such a matter which is concerned with the management of the discipline force; that removal of respondent's name from the promotion list is not a punishment or penalty and that department stand has not been considered properly, resulting in manifest injustice.
4. Mr. M. Tariq Javed, Advocate for the respondent, on the contrary, refuted the arguments of learned Additional Advocate-General and supported the impugned judgment on all counts maintaining that name of the respondent could not be removed from list "D" without any show- cause notice and that respondent was not provided any opportunity of hearing. Reliance was placed on Muhammad lqbal and 11 others vs. Superintendent of Police, Khanewal and another (2000 PLC (C.S.) 1127) and Rashid Ahmad and 3 others vs. Superintendent of Police and 2 others (1992 PLC (C.S.) 58).
5. Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the material on file, we find that learned Tribunal has rightly accepted the appeal of the respondent and set aside order dated 4.7.2008 for reasons no open to legitimate exception. Record reveals that respondent was appointed as constable on 13.1.1987. He was deputed to police Training College Hangu for recruit course which he passed. After passing Lower School Course he was promoted as Head Constable on 21.12.2001. He passed Intermediate School Course on 20.3.2004 and his name was brought on promotion list D. During service respondent got courses of Bomb Disposal, Scorpion, Credulity and Traffic and remained posted in various police stations as Mother Moharrar.
Surprisingly, no notice was issued to the respondent nor he was provided any opportunity of hearing and his name was removed from list "D in violation of principle of audi alteram partem. The hammer appears to have fallen on the respondent on account of oral complaints alleged to have been received against him. We agree with learned counsel for the respondent that oral complaints should not have weighed with the competent authority providing a ground for removal of his name from the promotion list. The inclusion of name of the respondent in the list creates a vested right in his favour for promotion to high rank and the same could not be withdrawn without adopting the proper legal procedure. Learned Tribunal has rightly accepted the appeal of the respondent. No infirmity, legal or factual has been pointed out in the impugned judgment.
6. Finding no merit in this petition, we dismiss the same and decline to grant leave.