HABIBULLAII vs THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and others
This petition arises from the dismissal of a police constable from service following allegations of involvement in narcotics trafficking. After his departmental appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, the petitioner was acquitted in criminal proceedings and subsequently filed a representation to the Inspector-General of Police, which was rejected. He then appealed to the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal as time-barred. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to condone the 720-day delay in filing the appeal, specifically whether time spent in criminal proceedings and pursuing a mercy petition should be excluded from the limitation period. The Supreme Court held that the decision of the Deputy Inspector-General was final under the relevant rules, and a mercy petition does not lie as a matter of right. Consequently, the limitation period commenced upon the dismissal of the departmental appeal. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, establishing that pursuing an unauthorized mercy petition does not toll the limitation period for filing a service appeal.
- Does the filing of a mercy petition to a superior authority extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- When does the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal commence after a departmental appeal is dismissed?
- Is a mercy petition filed before an Inspector-General of Police considered a legal right that tolls the limitation period for service appeals?
- Rule 14(b), Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner was a constable on the establishment of the Superintendent of Police Dera Ghazi Khan. On the allegation that he was involved in illegal dealings in narcotics, a show-cause notice was served upon him by the Superintendent of Police on 20-5-1984. He submitted his written explanation. It was considered by the Superintendent of Police and was found unsatisfactory. Consequently, by an order dated 3-6-1984, he was dismissed from service. He filed an appeal which was dismissed on 13-2-1985 by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police. He was also prosecuted in a criminal Court where he was acquitted. After his acquittal he submitted a representation to the Inspector-General of Police but it was filed. He then preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. It was dismissed on the ground of limitation. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. It is not disputed that the appeal of the petitioner before the Tribunal was barred by time. It is stated on his behalf that the learned Tribunal should have condoned the delay after giving him allowance for the period during which the criminal trial remained pending and the time spent in filing and pursuing the mercy petition.
3. It is to be noticed that under rule 14(b), the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, the decision of the Deputy Inspector-General on the appeal of the petitioner was final. The mercy petition filed by the petitioner before the Inspector-General did not lie as a matter of right. The time for filing the appeal before the Tribunal started running against the petitioner as soon as the Deputy Inspector-General dismissed the appeal. The petitioner preferred the appeal after a delay of 720 days. If in the circumstances the learned Tribunal did not consider it fit to condone the delay, it committed no error of law. The petition is dismissed.