MIAN MUHAMMAD, SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and another
The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, challenged an order stopping his increment for one year due to alleged inefficiency and negligence in a theft investigation. After his initial appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police was dismissed, the petitioner filed a second appeal before the Inspector-General, which was rejected as not maintainable under the relevant rules. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Punjab Service Tribunal, but his appeal was dismissed on the grounds of limitation. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the time spent pursuing a non-maintainable second appeal before the Inspector-General could be excluded when calculating the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Court held that since the order of the Deputy Inspector-General was final under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, no second appeal lay, and the time spent in such proceedings could not be excluded. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, establishing that pursuing a legally non-maintainable remedy does not toll the limitation period for subsequent proceedings.
- Does a second appeal lie against an order passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules?
- Can the time spent pursuing a non-maintainable second appeal be excluded from the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Rule 14(2), Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner is a Sub-Inspector Police. On the allegation that he had been inefficient and negligent in investigating a theft case, the Superintendent of Police served him with a show-cause notice. He submitted a written statement. He also appeared in person before the Superintendent of Police to explain his position. The Superintendent of Po ice found his explanation unsatisfactory and directed that his increment be stopped for one year. He preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police which was dismissed. He then filed a second appeal before the Inspector-General which was filed on the ground that there was no provision in the Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules for a second appeal. 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 after the dismissal of his appeal by the Deputy Inspector-General, the petitioner did not approach the Tribunal within the prescribed time. It is contended on his behalf that he should be given credit for the time he had spent in preferring the second appeal before the Inspector-General. There is no merit in this contention, for, under rule 14(2), the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, the order in the first appeal of the Deputy Inspector-General was final and no second appeal lay before the Inspector General. The learned Tribunal did not therefore commit any error in not excluding the time which the petitioner had spent in approaching the Inspector-General. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.