DPO CHINIOT and others vs MUHAMMAD AYUB
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Service Tribunal, which had allowed the respondent's appeal on the premise that the District Police Officer lacked the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a Sub-Inspector, asserting that the Regional Police Officer was the competent authority. The core legal question was whether the District Police Officer constitutes the competent appointing authority for junior ranks within the police force under the Police Order, 2002. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Article 23 of the Police Order, 2002, explicitly designates the Head of District Police as the appointing authority for junior ranks, and Article 2(xii) defines junior ranks to include officers of and below the rank of Inspector. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, as it was based on an incorrect interpretation of the competent authority. The matter was remanded to the Service Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits. The key principle established is that the District Police Officer holds the statutory authority to act as the appointing and disciplinary authority for junior ranks as defined by the Police Order, 2002.
- Who is the competent authority for the appointment of junior ranks in the police force under the Police Order, 2002?
- Does the definition of 'junior ranks' under Article 2(xii) of the Police Order, 2002 include the rank of Sub-Inspector?
- Is the District Police Officer authorized to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a Sub-Inspector?
- Article 2(xii), Police Order 2002
- Article 23, Police Order 2002
ORDER
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Respondent's appeal was allowed mainly on the ground that the impugned order was passed by the District Police Officer whereas the Competent Authority is the Regional Police Officer. Respondent at the relevant time was a Sub-Inspector.
2. Learned Additional Advocate-General refers to Article 23 of Police Order, 2002 to contend that it is the District Police Officer who is the competent authority for appointing officers of the junior ranks. The afore-referred provision read as under:- "23. Appointment of junior ranks.---Subject to rules, Head of District Police shall be the appointing authority for junior ranks."
The expression "junior ranks" has been defined in Article 2(xii) which reads as follows:-- 2(xii) "junior ranks" means: members of the police of and below the rank of Inspector as set out in the First Schedule."
3. Confronted with the above, respondent submits that since his appeal was not decided on merit, it may be remanded to the Tribunal to decide it afresh.
4. The stand taken by respondent is fair. The Service Tribunal allowed the appeal mainly on the ground that the competent authority to initiate proceedings against the Sub-Inspectors is only the Regional Police Officer which is violative of the afore-referred provision of law.
5. In view of the above, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. Respondent's appeal before the Service Tribunal shall be deemed to be pending before the Service Tribunal to be decided afresh within a month of the receipt of this order.
Respondents is directed to appear before the Service Tribunal on 26-12-2012.