BAKHT CHAMAN Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, N.-W.F.P., PESHAWAR
1. MALIK MUHAMMAD PERVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑ Appellant Bakht‑Chaman has filed the present appeal under section 4 of the N.‑W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the order of respondent No. 3 dated 25‑5 1986, of respondent No. 2, dated 24‑6‑1986 and of respondent No. 1 dated 30‑10 1986 vide which not only the respondent No. 3 dismissed him from service but also his appeals were dismissed.
2. According to him on 3‑4‑1986, he alongwith constables Sher Bahadur No. 52, Dawa Khan No. 1062, Muhammad Fayaz No. 364, Sahib Khan No. 1022, Maqsood No. 291, Yaras Khan, Noor Azim Shah No. 1669, Ghani Gul No. 918, Nazir No. 140 and Muhammad Ishaq No. 256 brought 30 accused from District Jail Swat to District Courts for their attendance. He was Incharge of the Guard deputed for the said purpose. One of the accused namely Abdur Rashid who was undergoing trial in the Court was a previous convict under section 302, P.P.C. and was undergoing life imprisonment in that case. He was in the immediate custody of constable Nazir No. 140. When he came back after attending the Court of EAC‑II, he came to know that the accused Abdur Rashid had gone into hiding W." he informed the superior officers about the tragedy and a case under section 223/224, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No. 129, dated 3‑4‑1986 was registered at P.S. Saidu Sharif. However, departmental proceedings were initiated against him and finally he was dismissed from service vide impugned order, dated 25‑5‑1986. His appeal and mercy petition also were dismissed by the other two respondents; hence the present appeal on the ground that the orders in question are illegal, unjust, un warranted and against the record of the case. He had to produce the other accused being the Incharge of the guard before the different Courts at Saidu Sharif while the accused Abdur Rashid and the others were in the immediate custody of Nazir F.C. and the other incumbents. It was humanly impossible for him to watch their activities from inside the Court and it was also not fair on his part to take all the accused in the Court; when they were not called for appearance.
3. The respondents controverted the pleas of the appellant and claimed that he was at fault, it was his responsibility to keep a watch on the activities of the accused and the constables. He failed to exhibit efficiency, discipline and during this interval a life convict escaped from the custody of the appellant.
4. Arguments were advanced by both the sides and after perusal of the record we have come to the conclusion that the present appeal is badly barred by time. There is no provision of mercy petition in the Police Rules, 1975. The appeal by respondent No. 2 was dismissed on 24‑6‑1986 and the appellant was bound to move the Tribunal within 30 days of the said order. He on the other hand instituted the present appeal on 29‑12‑1986. If we consider the period of passing the order by respondent No. 1, even then the present appeal is badly barred by time. On the basis of the above discussion we have got no other alternative but to dismiss the present appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. AA./91/Sr.N
6. Appeal dismissed.