Malak MUHAMMAD KHAN vs INSPECTORGENERAL OF POLICE and others
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against his reversion from the post of Sub-Inspector of Police to Assistant Sub-Inspector as time-barred. The reversion order was passed following departmental proceedings on charges of corruption and inefficiency. After exhausting departmental appeals up to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, the petitioner made a further representation to the Inspector-General of Police before approaching the Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing a second departmental appeal or representation not provided for by the rules could be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that since the applicable rules only provide for a single appeal and the order of the appellate authority is final, the time spent on an incompetent further representation to the Inspector-General of Police cannot be excluded when computing limitation. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal.
- Whether the time spent on a second departmental appeal or representation not provided for under the relevant rules can be excluded for computing the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Does Rule 13(b) of the Sindh Police (E&D) Rules, 1983 permit more than one departmental appeal against an original order?
- Is an appeal filed before the Service Tribunal beyond the prescribed period of limitation, excluding the time spent on incompetent departmental representations, liable to be dismissed as time-barred?
- Rule 13(b), Sindh Police (E&D) Rules 1983
ORDER
' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal before which' he had called in question the order of his reversion from the post of S.I.P. To that of A.S.I. This reversion order was passed in departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner to whom show-cause notice had been issued and allegations of general complaints of corruption and inefficiency were made against him. After he had submitted his reply and fully heard, by order, dated 18-4-1990, the S.P. Thatta passed order of his reversion. The appeal filed against this order to D.I.G.P. Was rejected on 26-11-1990. Thereafter the petitioner approached I.G.P.
Who by his letter, dated 5-3-1991 informed the petitioner that as provided by Rule 13(b) of Sindh Police (E&D) Rules, 1983 only one appeal can be filed from the original order and the order of the Appellate Authority was final. The petitioner then filed appeal before the Service Tribunal on 26-3- 1991. The petition was held to be time-barred and was dismissed.
2. As according to Rules only one appeal is provided the petitioner should have filed appeal before the Tribunal after the order, dated 5-3-1991, had been passed. The time spent in filing appeal or representation before Inspector-General of Police cannot be taken into consideration in computing the period of limitation. We, therefore, refuse to grant leave. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 4 cases
- GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. and others vs FARMAN ALI and others 2005 SCMR 774
- GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. Versus FARMAN ALI 2005 PLC(CS) 737
- AHMED BARCH vs CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN STEEL, KARACHI 2006 PLC (C.S.) 993
- SHAMSHAD HUSSAIN vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2008 PLC (C.S.) 408