MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and 2 others
This service matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the dismissal of the appellant's service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal in limine on the ground of non-impleadment of the Reporting Officer as a necessary party. The core legal question examined was whether the Deputy Superintendent of Police was a necessary party whose non-impleadment warranted the dismissal of the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order of dismissal was not sustainable, noting that the competent authority was duly impleaded and that the Tribunal had ample power to direct the impleadment of any necessary party rather than dismissing the appeal outright. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the case remanded to the Tribunal for a re-hearing. The key principle laid down is that a service tribunal should direct the impleadment of a necessary party rather than dismissing an appeal in limine for such an omission.
- Whether the Deputy Superintendent of Police was at all a necessary party when the allegation is that he was not the Reporting Officer?
- Whether the non-impleadment of Deputy Superintendent of Police could entail dismissal?
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---In this service matter the dismissal of service appeal of the appellant by Punjab Service Tribunal has been brought under challenge. The impugned order reads as follows:- "Present: ' Mr. M.A. Riaz, Advocate, counsel for the Appellant. Ch. Manzoor Hussain, DA. For Respondents.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. ' During hearing it has been pointed out by the learned District Attorney that in the instant appeal the appellant has not impleaded the Reporting Officer as a party, although the Reporting Officer was a necessary party and due to this omission the instant appeal is incompetent and not maintainable under the law. This contention of the learned District Attorney is fully substantiated from the record. Consequently the instant appeal being incompetent and not maintainable in its present form is dismissed as such in limine.
4. ' Announced."
5. Leave to appeal was granted to examine:
(i) Whether the Deputy Superintendent of Police was at all a necessary party when the allegation is that he was not the Reporting Officer?
(ii) Whether the non-impleadment of Deputy Superintendent of Police could entail dismissal?"
6. ' Learned counsel for the respondents stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police was not the competent authority in this case. The Deputy Inspector-General being the competent authority was duly impleaded before the Tribunal. In addition the Superintendent of Police was also impleaded as a respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that if the Tribunal would have desired the appellant would have impleaded also, the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He even now undertakes to implead him as a party. Not only this the Tribunal had ample power instead of dismissing the appeal to direct the appellant to implead the Deputy Superintendent of Police or any other person as a party. For all these reasons the impugned order is not sustainable.
7. This appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to Punjab Service Tribunal for re-hearing of the appeal which shall be deemed to be pending