M°HAMMAD KHALID KHAN Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB

Muhammad Khalid Khan has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the inspector‑General of Police, Lahore, the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Lahore and the Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order, dated 20th September, 1981, 27th December, 1975 and 14th September, 1975 be set aside and appeal be accepted with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was recruited as Assistant Sub‑inspector in September. 1966 in the Punjab Police Depart ment. He was appointed as officiating Sub‑Inspector, in 1973. While the appellant was posted as Incharge P. P. Amer Sidhu Lahore he was found to be grossly careless and negligent in the investigation of case F. I. R. No. 92/75 under section 302, P. P. C. On this he was reverted from the officiating rank of S.‑I. to his substantive rank of A. S.‑I. on 14th September, 1975 by respondent No. 3. The appellant preferred an appeal to the respondent No. 2. The appellant was afforded an opportunity of show cause, his written reply was considered and he was also heard in person. The order of respondent No. 2 of the reversion the appellant dated 14th September, 1975 was cancelled. However, D. I.‑G. Police, Lahore Range, Lahore, vide his order dated 27th December, 1975 ordered the reversion of the appellant from S.‑I. to A. S.‑I. from 26th December, 1975. The appellant made a revision petition to the I.‑G. Police which was considered and filed, vide order dated 20th September, 1981 conveying to the appellant on 28th October, 1981. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been reverted from S.‑I. to A. S.‑I. by Superintendent of Police (H. Qr.), Lahore, in utter disregard of settled rules and regulations envisaged in the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975. The procedure as laid down in the E & D Rules was not at all observed and the appellant was not even served with a show‑cause notice. Thus the reversion of the appellant by S. P. (H. Qr.). Lahore was illegal. Similarly the order of the Deputy Inspector‑General who had cancelled the earlier orders of S. P,, and reverted the appellant as A. S.‑I. suffers from the same lacuna as no proper procedure under the E & D Rules was adopted. Thus the order of the D. I.‑G. Police Lahore is also unlawful. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Police Rules 16.10 and 16.24 and has submitted as the appellant was alleged guilty of misconduct in negligent in the investigation of case F. I. R. 92/75, hence it was necessary for the competent authority to proceed properly under these rules and he should have been allowed opportunity to defend himself. Thus, the appellant has been prejudiced in the matter. The appellant has been punished without proving the negligence/carelessness against him and he is thus innocent in the matter. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon P L D 1958 (W. P.) Lah. 319, according to which although the appellant was working in officiating capacity, even then, he was required to be served with a show‑cause notice before punishing him. He has also relied on an earlier judgment of this Tribunal 564/1484 of 1981, Khalid Masud v. S. P. Sadar Lahore, etc. Concluding his arguments the learned counsel for the appel lant has submitted that the reversion of the appellant is unjustified, un lawful and has prayed for setting aside the same.

5. Controverting the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant the learned District Attorney has submitted that the Police Rules 16.10 and 16.24 so relied upon by the learned counsel for the appel lants are not applicable in this case as these rules have been repealed by the enforcement of Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975, notified, vide notification, dated 24th December, 1975. It has been pointed out by the learned District Attorney that according to the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975 as per rule 4 (2) (b) "reversion from an officiating rank is not a punishment". Hence the appellant has been proceeded and dealt with under the above‑mentioned rules. It was also submitted by the learned District Attorney that it was wrong to say that the appellant was not served with a show‑cause notice. It is clear from the order, dated 27th December, 1975 of the D. I.‑G. Police, Lahore that the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice, his written reply was considered, he was also heard in person and then he was reverted. Though it was not neces sary to observe the above formalities as reversion from an officiating rank is not a punishment, even then the appellant was given opportunities to defend himself and was thus, not prejudiced in the matter. It was further stated by the learned District Attorney as the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice hence the reliance of the appellant's counsel, on P L D 1958 (W. P.) Lah. 319 is not in order. It was also made known by the learned D. A. that in the Case No. 564/1484 of 1981, Khalid Masud v. S. P. Sadar, etc. the reliance of the appellant's counsel is also not correct. That case is quite distinguishable from the present case. The matter involved in that case was regarding corruption charges and not similar or identical with the present case. Concluding his arguments the learned District Attorney has submitted that the appellant has been reverted from officiating rank to substantive rank correctly and lawfully.

6. It was further submitted by the learned District Attorney that the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred. The impugned order of reversion of the D. I.‑G. Police Lahore was passed in 1975 and the appellant had made revision petition to the I.‑G. Police Lahore in 1981, after a lapse of 6 years. It was pointed out by him that this appeal is liable to be dismiss ed on this score above.

7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and 1 have also perused the record carefully. The impugned order dated 27th December, 1975 of D. I.‑G. Police, Lahore clearly mentions that the appellant was given an opportunity of show cause, his written reply was considered and he was also heard in person. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant, thus, is incorrect that the appellant was not afforded an opportunity of show cause to explain his position. As per reliance of the learned District Attorney on rule 4 (2) (b) of the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975, we have already held in Case No. 201/1801 of 1982, Sardar Ali v. I.‑G. Police, Punjab, Lahore and others, dated 14th March, 1983 that reversion from an officiating rank of S.‑I. to that of a 1A rank of A. S.‑I. is not a punishment and no departmental proceedings are required to be taken against any Police Officer before reverting him to his substantive rank. We consider that the impugned order of reversion of the appellant by respondent No. 2. is unexceptional. As far as reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant, on the rules 16.10 and 16.24 ; P L D 1958 (W. P.) Lah. 319 and Case No. 564/1484 of 1981, (decided by this tribunal) is concerned, these pleas have been rebutted successfully by the learned District Attorney as mentioned above in para. 5 in this judgment. I am in full agreement with the views of the learned District Attorney.

8. As far as legal objection of the learned District Attorney regarding the appeal not within time is concerned, in the order, dated 20th September, 1981 of the I.‑G. Police it has been mentioned that the review petition of the appellant was considered and filed. Thus, on consideration of the revision petition of the appellant by the I.‑G. Police, the delay it any for submission of the appeal has been duly covered, as the delay has not been objected to by the I.‑G. Police, Punjab, Lahore. Thus, this objection of the learned District Attorney is not in order.

9. Keeping the above analysis in view, I hold that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.

There will be no order as to costs.

A. E. Appeal dismissed.