AHMED ALI (A.S.I.) vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, LAHORE and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, following an F.I.R. registered against him. Although the petitioner was initially dismissed, the Inspector General of Police later converted the penalty to a reduction in rank, which was subsequently set aside by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner sought to be nominated for the Intermediate Class course, but the Inspector General of Police refused to relax the upper age limit for his eligibility. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had a legal right to demand relaxation of the upper age limit and whether the refusal to grant such relaxation constituted discrimination. The Supreme Court held that the authority to grant age relaxation falls exclusively within the discretionary domain of the Inspector General of Police. The Court determined that the petitioner, having a blemished service record, was not entitled to such relaxation and found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as meritless, affirming that no legal right exists to compel administrative authorities to grant discretionary age relaxations.
- Does an employee have a vested legal right to demand the relaxation of the upper age limit for promotion or training?
- Is the Inspector General of Police's refusal to grant age relaxation subject to judicial interference if the discretion was not exercised in a capricious or arbitrary manner?
- Can a service record with blemishes justify the denial of discretionary age relaxation for departmental courses?
- Section 18, Ordinance VII of 1979
- Section 294, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' JAVED IQBAL, J---Pursuant to F.I.R. Got lodged under section 18 of Ordinance VII of 1979 read with section 294 P.P.C. At Police station Hujra, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner which culminated into his dismissal from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed but the Inspector General of Police while exercising his revisional jurisdiction converted the penalty of dismissal from service to that of reduction in rank vide order dated 7-6- 1994. The said penalty was also set aside by learned Punjab Service Tribunal vide judgment dated 2-5-2000. During the intervening period a few Constables, junior to the petitioner, were selected for Intermediate Class and subsequently after qualifying it promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police. The petitioner moved an application to get his upper age limit relaxed which was turned down by the Inspector General of Police vide order dated 3-10-1995.
2. Heard. Mr. Ehsan Ullah Lilla, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner whose prime contention is that after acceptance of his appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal his nomination could not have been refused for Intermediate Class merely on the ground that he had crossed the upper age limit. It is also argued that relaxation was awarded to some officials and petitioner has been discriminated.
3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. The judgment impugned has been perused carefully. The matter concerning relaxation in upper age limit exclusively falls within the jurisdictional domain and competency of the Inspector General of Police who by no stretch of imagination could be compelled to act in a particular manner and grant relaxation in upper age limit. We are conscious of the fact that relaxation could be granted in hardship cases but the case of petitioner does not fall within such category in view of blemished and unsatisfactory record of his service.
4. We have also adverted to the plea of discrimination which appears to be meritless and relaxation has been granted to those who were having unblemished-record of service. The petitioner has absolutely no legal right to demand such a relaxation. The Inspector General of Police has not exercised its discretion in a capricious or an arbitrary manner warranting any interference. The judgment impugned being well based and free from any illegality cannot be reversed without any cogent reasoning which is badly lacking in this case. No question of law of pubic importance is involved in the matter persuading us to grant leave to appeal. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUHAMMAD MOHSIN GHUMAN and 6 others vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Home 2013 PLC (C.S.) 1076
- MUHAMMAD MOHSIN GHUMAN and others vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Home Secretary, Lahore and others 2013 PLC (C.S.) 1076, 2013 PLJ SC 66, 2013 SCMR 85
- MUHAMMAD MOHSIN GHUMAN and 6 others vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through its 2013 PLJ SC 66