INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA vs Syed IMRAN

ORDER

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---Leave to appeal was granted to the Inspector-General of Police, Balochistan under Article 212(3) of the Constitution to examine the legal validity of the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal whereby the order of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Quetta Range, Quetta dated 5-6-1990 reinstating the respondent was upheld.

2. The respondent was recruited initially as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on 1-12-1988 and was on probation for a period of three years under Rule 12.8 of the Police Rules, 1934. On 7-8-1989, the Commandant Police College, Sihala reported against him on two counts. Firstly he was found absent from patrol duty at 1-30 p.m. Secondly there was a case registered against him at the police station for forcibly snatching a purse containing Rs,283 from a lady in Mohallah Krishanpura and another for possessing unlicensed arms. On these facts it was reported that he was not a fit person for police service and was not likely to make a good police officer. Disciplinary action was called for against him. The competent authority namely, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Quetta Range, Quetta passed the following order on 3-9-1989:--- "Directly appointed P/ASI S. Imran Abbas son of S. Nazir Hussain Shah of Quetta District while undergoing Intermediate Class Course at Police Training College, Sihala was involved in case FIR No,266 under section 382, P.P.C. Of Police Station Banni. He is not likely to become a good Police Officer. He is hereby discharged from service with effect from 3-8-1989 under Police Rule, 12.8."

3. In the criminal cases registered against the respondent the complainant did not make any appearance in Court and he was acquitted whereupon on 5-6-1990 the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Quetta Range, Quetta passed the following order:-- "P/ASI Syed Imran Abbas of Quetta District while undergoing Intermediate Class Course at Police Training School, Sihala was involved in Case FIR No,266 under section 382, P.P.C. Of Police Station Banni, and subsequently he was discharged from service with offect from 3-8-1989 under Police Rule 12.8. The case was under trial in the Court of Magistrate of Ist Class, Rawalpindi and he was acquitted by the Court under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. From the charges levelled against the Ex-ASI.

2. Keeping in view the decision of the Court, ASI Imran Abbas is reinstated in service from the date of discharge. The period he remained out of service is treated as leave without pay. On reinstatement in service he is posted to Pishin District against an existing vacancy and further attached to Quetta District. He will be deputed for training in the next session."

4. This order of the D.I.-G. Was substituted by the Inspector-General of Police, Balochistan with the following order dated 4-8-1990:- "Probationer Assistant Sub-Inspector Syed Imran Abbas of Quetta Range (Pishin District), having been found unsuitable for service in the Police, is hereby discharged from service with immediate effect under the provisions of Police Rule 12.8."

5. The respondent thereafter moved the Chief Minister who again passed an order of his reinstatement to which the Inspector-General of Police did not give effect whereupon the respondent approached the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal restored his appointment by concluding as hereunder:- "In this case as one is able to make out is that Syed Imran Abbas ASI Police selected and appointed by the D.I.-G. Police, as probationer for training at Police Training School, Sihala was under the command of the Commandant Police Training School during training as well as a subordinate to the D.I.-G.(P) of his parent department. Since the D.I.-G. Of Police is the appointing authority and all actions to hire and fire the official solely and squarely rest with the D.I.-G.(P). Therefore, we uphold the Order No,3381-83/16(Misc.)/E dt., 5th June, 1990, passed by D.I.-G. Police, Quetta Range, Quetta."

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we find that the view taken by the Service Tribunal with regard to the competence of the D.I.-G. To pass the reinstatement order on 5-6-1990 is untenable. Rule 12.8 of the Police Rules provides as hereunder:-- "12.8. Probationary nature of appointments.--Inspectors, sergeants, sub-inspectors and assistant sub-inspectors who are directly appointed will be considered to be on probation for three years and are liable to be discharged at any time within the period of their probation if they fail to pass the prescribed examinations including the riding test, or are guilty of grave misconduct or are deemed for sufficient reason, to be unsuitable for service in the Police. A probationary inspector shall be discharged by the Inspector-General, and all other Upper Subordinates by Range Deputy Inspector-General, Assistant Inspector-General, Government Railway Police, and Assistant Inspector-General, Provincial Additional Police (designated as Commandant, Provincial Additional Police). No appeal lies against an order of discharge."

7. There being no provision for appeal and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police having become functus officio after passing the discharge order could not pass an order reinstating him. At best, a representation could be filed to the next higher authority and thereupon the jurisdiction in the matter would have been of the next higher authority and not of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Quetta Range, Quetta. The order of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police dated 5-6-1990 being without lawful authority, his earlier order dated 3-9-1989 would hold the field. Neither the Chief Minister nor the Home Department of the Provincial Government could revoke it. It was only the Inspector-General of Police who could have done so on a proper representation.

8. The Police is a highly disciplined force and the law intends it to be so. Any person not possessed of the power and authority to deal with the Police Officer should not be allowed to deal with the service matters of the police functionaries. In the circumstances, we accept the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Service Tribunal and dismiss the service appeal filed by the respondent before the Service Tribunal. No order is made as to costs.