MUHAMMAD ARIF vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and 2 others
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner police constable's appeal against his dismissal from service as barred by time. The petitioner was dismissed by the Superintendent of Police for releasing bad characters after receiving illegal gratifications. His departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector-General was dismissed, and a subsequent second appeal before the Inspector-General was filed as incompetent. The core legal question revolved around whether the time spent pursuing the incompetent second appeal before the Inspector-General warranted condonation of delay for filing the service tribunal appeal, given the revision powers under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The Supreme Court held that since the rules provide for only one final appeal against an order of dismissal, the limitation period commenced upon communication of the Deputy Inspector-General's appellate order, and the availability of revision powers by the Inspector-General provided no legal justification to condone the delay. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, affirming the Tribunal's decision.
- Does the pendency of an incompetent second departmental appeal justify the condonation of delay for filing an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal?
- When does the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal commence following the dismissal of a departmental appeal?
- Does the power of revision vested in an authority under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 extend the limitation period for approaching the Service Tribunal?
- Rule 12(1), Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975
- Rule 14, Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his dismissal from service was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was serving as Constable in the C.I.A. Staff, Rawalpindi. On the allegation that he had released some bad characters after receiving illegal gratifications, the Superintendent of Police issued him a show cause. He submitted a written reply. After considering his reply and hearing him in person they said officer dismissed him from service. He preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector-General which was dismissed. He filed a second appeal before the Inspector-General. It was filed as incompetent. He then preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. It was dismissed as barred by time. He no seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. It is not disputed that if the date of order of the Deputy Inspector General is taken as the starting point for limitation, the petitioner's appeal before the Tribunal was out of time. The case of the petitioner is that under Rule 12(1 the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, the Inspector-General was competent to revise the orders of the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector-General. That being so, the learned Tribunal should have condone the delay after giving him credit for the time he had spent in pursuing his second appeal before the Inspector-General.
4. It is to be noticed that Rule 14, the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, provides for only one appeal against an order of dismiss or removal from service and the decision on the appeal is final. That being the position, the time for filing the appeal before the Tribunal started running against the petitioner as soon as the order of the Deputy Inspector-General was communicated, to him. The mere fact that the Inspector-General could revise the order of the appellate authority furnished no justification to the petitioner for waiting till his second appeal was disposed of. In the circumstances, the refusal of the learned Tribunal in not condoning the delay cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity. Leave to appeal is refused.