2006 PLP 496 (SCMR)
NAJAM ABBAS and others — Petitioners Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CITY DIVISION, GUJRANWALA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 496 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | NAJAM ABBAS and others — Petitioners Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CITY DIVISION, GUJRANWALA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Administration of justice, (a) Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000), (c) Administration of justice |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 496 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Administration of justice, (a) Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000), (c) Administration of justice as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 496 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 496 (SCMR) (NAJAM ABBAS and others — Petitioners Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CITY DIVISION, GUJRANWALA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Anwar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.276-L of 2005).
- Rana Safdar Ali Asif, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizur Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.2703-L of 2003).
- Hafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.367-L of 2004).
- Pervaiz Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.51-L of 2005).
- Muhammad Tahir Ch. Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmoodul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.83-L of 2005).
- Hafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.P. No.151-L of 2005).
- Haji M. Rafi Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.158-L of 2005).
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.193-L of 2005).
- Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Sabir, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.P. No.211-L of 2005).
- Hafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.217-L of 2005).
- Abid Saqi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmoodul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.220-L of 2005).
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.315-L of 2005).
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner (in C.P. No.348-L of 2005).
- Ch. Muhammad Akbar Gill, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.435-L of 2005).
- Ch. M. Hanif Zahid, , Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.449-L of 2005).
- Hafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.755-L of 2005).
- Ch. Manzoor Hussain Basra, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.1337 -L of 2005).
- Hafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.1404-L of 2005).
- Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.1440-L of 2005).
- Rana Safdar Ali Asif, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizur Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.1497-L of 2005).
- S.M. Tayyab, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Anwar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.90-L of 2006).
- Hafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.121-L of 2006).
- Muzammil Akhtar Shabbir, Advocate Supreme Court and Haji M. Rafi Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.168-L of 2005).
- Date of hearing: 14th February, 2006.
- Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record (absent) and Munn. Ahmad in person (in C.P. No.548-L of 2005).
- Aamir Rahman, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, Muhammad Hanif Khattana, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, Muhammad Akbar Tarar, Additional Advocate-General Punjab, Akhtar Ali Qureshi, Assistant Advocate-General Punjab and Mian Ghulam Hussain Advocate Supreme Court for official Respondents.
- 5. Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder, learned Advocate Supreme Court submits that the impugned judgments are in consonance with the dictum laid down by this courting the following judgments:
- 6. Hafiz Tariq Nasim, the learned Advocate Supreme Court submits that the rule 12 of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules is similar to the section 9-A of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, therefore, I.-G. Police erred in law to dismiss the revision petitions of the petitioners as not maintainable. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:--
- 7. Mr. Pervez Inayat Malik, the learned Advocate Supreme Court submits that I-G. Police had entertained the petitions of co-accused of the petitioner, therefore, action of the I.-G. Police was not in consonance with the Article 25 of the Constitution. He further urges that the Service Tribunal had passed contradictory judgments. In case of the petitioner, the petition was dismissed as time-barred whereas learned Service Tribunal condoned the delay in case of Ahmad Pervez Khan in Appeal No.2671 of 2002 vide judgment, dated 28-1-2003. Mr. Abid Saqi and others learned counsel of the petitioners had adopted the 'arguments of Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder, Advocate Supreme Court and Hafiz Tariq Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court.
- 8. Mr. Aamir Rehman, Additional Advocate-General Punjab submits that the petitioners have no remedy of revision before the I.-G. of Police under the provisions of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 as depicted from section 2(aa) wherein the competent authority means the Chief Minister of the Punjab read with section 9-A(2) wherein power is given to the competent authority to initiate proceedings against the accused person in case accused was acquitted or discharged. Muhammad Hanif Khattana, A.A.-G., Muhammad Akbar Tarar, A.A.-G., Muhammad Akhtar Ali Kureshe, A.A.-G., Punjab also adopted the arguments of Mr. Aamir Rehman, A.A.-G.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgments/orders of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, passed in Appeals Nos.1427 of 2004, dated 16-12-2005, 1928 of 2003, dated 30-8-2003, 620 of 2003, dated 18-12-2003, 1855, 1364 of 2004, 2321 of 2003, 2861 of 2004, 196 of 2004, 2452 of 2004, 980 of 2004, 1213 of 2004, 1176 of 2003, 1855 of 2004, dated 7-12-2004, 2670 of 2004, dated 27-12-2004, 766 of 2003, dated 15-9-2004, 2257 of 2004, dated 4-2-2005, 2871 of 2004, dated 24-1-2005, 2107 of 2004, dated 9-2-2005, 674 of 2005, dated 14-4-2005, 1621 of 2004, dated 11-5-2005, 1486 of 2003, dated 31-5-2005, 2018 of 2003, dated 22-6-2005, 2598 of 2003, dated 7-6-2005, 1893 of 2005, dated 24-11-2005, 2294 of 2005, dated 10-11-2005, 1257 of 2004, dated 12-10-2004).
S. 9
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Dismissal of revision after six months as being non maintainable-Dismissal of appeal by Service Tribunal as being time barred
Competent Authority had not returned revision petition to petitioner within prescribed period in terms of S.9(4) of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000
Competent authority was obliged to issue instructions regarding availing of remedy of revision by petitioner to avoid abnormal situation
Competent. authority had dismissed revision of petitioner being non'-maintainable, but had entertained revision of co-accused and decided same on merits
Competent authority without issuing intimation to petitioner within prescribed period had dismissed revision as non-maintainable
Had petitioner been informed well in time, he would have availed remedy of appeal before Tribunal in time
Tribunal, while deciding appeal, had not adverted to S.9(4) of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000
Supreme Court accepted appeal and set aside impugned judgment, resultantly petitioner's appeal before Tribunal would be deemed pending adjudication. Government of Punjab v. Muhammad Saleem 1995 SCMR 546; Muhammad Arslan v. Chancellor Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad and others 2004 SCMR 1419; House Building Finance Corporation and others v. Syed Muhammad All Gohar Zaidi 2004 SCMR 1811; I.-G. HQ Frontier Corps and others v. Ghulam Hussain and others 2004 SCMR 1397; Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Lahore and 2 others v. Abdul Ghafoor 1992 SCMR 2162; Abdul Rehman v. I.-G. of Police and 2 others PLD 1995 SC 546; Muhammad Ibrahim v. Pakistan Oil Seeds Development Board and others 2006 SCMR 95; Muhammad Yaqoob v. D.P.O. Sahiwal and 2 others 2006 SCMR 310 and Raza Hussain Shah v. S.S.P. (Investigation) and others C.P. No.2559-L of 2003 ref. Muhammad Muzaffar Khan's case PLD 1959 SC 9; I.A. Sharwani's case 1991 SCMR 1041; Messrs Airport Support Services v. Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport Karachi and others 1998 SCMR 2268 and Zain Yar Khan v. Chief Engineer CRBC, WAPDA, D.I. Khan and another 1998 SCMR 2419 rel.
No one should be penalized for the act of public functionaries. Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Muhammad Saleem 1994 SCMR 2213 rel. Petitioner in person (in C.P. No.201-L of 2005). Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record (absent) and Munn. Ahmad in person (in C.P. No.548-L of 2005). Aamir Rahman, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, Muhammad Hanif Khattana, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, Muhammad Akbar Tarar, Additional Advocate-General Punjab, Akhtar Ali Qureshi, Assistant Advocate-General Punjab and Mian Ghulam Hussain Advocate Supreme Court for official Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.
"For the reasons to be recorded separately all the above captioned petitions are converted into appeal and accepted. The judgments impugned are hereby, set aside and the appeals shall be treated as pending before the learned Service Tribunal Punjab which shall be decided in accordance with law and on merits within a period of three months after affording proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned".
2. These are the reasons of the aforesaid short order.
3. The above captioned petitions for leave to appeal are being disposed of by one consolidated order having identical question of law and facts.
4. Detailed facts have already been stated in the petitions. However, necessary facts out of which the present petitions arise are that the respondents had initiated proceedings against the petitioners under the provisions of the Removal from Service (Special Orders) Ordinance, 2000. The competent authority awarded different punishments to each of the petitioner as mentioned in their respective orders qua each petitioner. Petitioners being aggrieved filed departmental appeals which were Rejected by the departmental appellate authority. Thereafter the petitioners filed revision petitions before the I.-G. of Police. The I.-G. of Police had decided the same after considerable delay of more than six months approximately in each case and had taken a view that the revision petitions filed by the petitioners were not maintainable before him in view of the provisions of the aforesaid Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance. Petitioners being aggrieved filed appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. The learned Service Tribunal dismissed their appeals as time-barred. Hence these petitions.
5. Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder, learned Advocate Supreme Court submits that the impugned judgments are in consonance with the dictum laid down by this courting the following judgments: (i) Government of Punjab v. Muhammad Saleem 1995 SCMR 546; (ii) Muhammad Arslan v. Chancellor Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad and others 2004 SCMR 1419 and (iii) House Building Finance Corporation and others v. Syed Muhammad Ali Gohar Zaidi 2004 SCMR 1811.
6. Hafiz Tariq Nasim, the learned Advocate Supreme Court submits that the rule 12 of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules is similar to the section 9-A of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, therefore, I.-G. Police erred in law to dismiss the revision petitions of the petitioners as not maintainable. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:-- (i) I.-G. HQ Frontier Corps and others v. Ghtilam Hussain and others 2004 SCMR 1397; (ii) Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Lahore and 2 others v. Abdul Ghafoor 1992 SCMR 2162; (iii) Abdul Rehman v. I.-G. of Police and 2 others PLD 1995 SC 546; (iv) Muhammad Ibrahim v. Pakistan Oil Seeds Development Board and others 2006 SCMR
95. He is very fair while submitting that there are judgments of this Court which are in consonance with the impugned judgments of the Service Tribunal which are as follows:-- (i) Muhammad Yaqoob v. D.P.O. Sahiwal and 2 others 2006 SCMR 310 and (ii).unreported order, dated 24-8-2004 passed in Raza Hussain Shah v. S.S.P. (Investigation) and others C.P. No.2559-L of 2003
7. Mr. Pervez Inayat Malik, the learned Advocate Supreme Court submits that I-G. Police had entertained the petitions of co-accused of the petitioner, therefore, action of the I.-G. Police was not in consonance with the Article 25 of the Constitution. He further urges that the Service Tribunal had passed contradictory judgments. In case of the petitioner, the petition was dismissed as time-barred whereas learned Service Tribunal condoned the delay in case of Ahmad Pervez Khan in Appeal No.2671 of 2002 vide judgment, dated 28-1-2003. Mr. Abid Saqi and others learned counsel of the petitioners had adopted the 'arguments of Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder, Advocate Supreme Court and Hafiz Tariq Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court.
8. Mr. Aamir Rehman, Additional Advocate-General Punjab submits that the petitioners have no remedy of revision before the I.-G. of Police under the provisions of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 as depicted from section 2(aa) wherein the competent authority means the Chief Minister of the Punjab read with section 9-A(2) wherein power is given to the competent authority to initiate proceedings against the accused person in case accused was acquitted or discharged. Muhammad Hanif Khattana, A.A.-G., Muhammad Akbar Tarar, A.A.-G., Muhammad Akhtar Ali Kureshe, A.A.-G., Punjab also adopted the arguments of Mr. Aamir Rehman, A.A.-G.
9. We have given our due consideration to the contention of learned counsel of the parties and perused the record. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 to resolve the controversy between the parties:--
9. Representation and review.
(1) The person who has been awarded any penalty under this Ordinance may within fifteen days from the date of the communication of the order, prefer a representation to such Officer or authority as the (Chief Minister) may designate: Provided that where the order has been made by the Governor or the Chief Minister, such person may, within the aforesaid period, submit a review petition to the same authority which had passed the original order. (2) The Authority empowered under subsection (1) may, on consideration of the representation or, as the case may be, the review petition, and any other relevant material confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order in respect of which such representation or review petition was made. (3) A representation or review preferred under this section shall be made in the form of a petition, in writing, and shall set forth concisely the grounds of objection to the order appealed from and shall not contain disrespectful or improper language and shall be filed with the authority which passed the original order. (4) The authority, receiving the representation or review under subsection (3) shall within fifteen days, forward the same along with its comments, to the authority competent to decide the same. 9-A Special powers.
(1) The competent authority or the authority to which a representation or review lies under this Ordinance, may call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any authority for purposes of satisfying as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding penalty or of or passed and as to the regularity or any proceedings authority. (2) On examining any record under this section such authority may direct the authority concerned to make further inquiry into the charges of which the accused was acquitted or discharged and may, in its discretion, exercise any or all the powers or and authority under section 9 of this Ordinance: Provided that no order prejudicial to the accused person shall be passed under section unless such person has been given an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action: Provided further that an order imposing punishment or exonerating the accused shad not be revised suo motu or otherwise after the lapse of a period of one year from the date of communication of the order of the competent authority and in case a representation or review is preferred from the date of communication of the order on such representation or review.
10. It is an admitted fact that the I.-G. of Police had not returned the revision petitions to the petitioners within the prescribed period in terms of section 9(4). It is a settled proposition of law that nobody should be penalized for the act of the public functionaries. Even otherwise it is the duty and obligation of the competent authority to issue instruction with regard of availing the remedy of revision by the petitioners abnormal situation keeping in view rule 12 of Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 read with rule 16.13 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 framed under Punjab Police Act, 186) and provisions Police Order, 2002 keeping in view ground realities that I.-G. Police had passed inconsistent orders as dismissed revision petitions of the petitioners being not maintainable whereas he had entertained revision petitions of other employees and decided on merits similarly the learned Service Tribunal had passed impugned judgments in violation of principle of consistency, therefore, impugned orders and judgments are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are not in accordance with law laid down by this Court in the following judgments: (i) Muhammad Muzaffar Khan's case PLD 1959 SC 9; (ii) I.A. Sharwani's case 1991 SCMR 1041.
11. As mentioned above revision petitions were kept pending adjudication before the I.-G. Police of Punjab and thereafter without intimation to the petitioner within the prescribed period decided the same that the revision petitions were not maintainable before him. In the cases in hand, it stands established that it is the respondents who are at fault and if the petitioners would have been informed well in time by the I.-G. D of Police then the petitioner must have availed the remedy of appeal before the Service Tribunal well in time. Consequently, petitioners would not be knocked out by the learned Service Tribunal on the ground of limitation. The learned Service Tribunal had decided the appeals of the petitioners without adverting to section 9(4) of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000.
12. The learned Service Tribunal as well as the respondents are duty bound to decide the cases of the petitioner within reasonable time after application of mind in terms of Article 4, Article 5(2) read with section 24-A of the General Clauses Act as the law laid down by this Court in following judgments:-- (i) Messrs Airport Support Services v. Airport Manager, Quaid e-Azam International Airport Karachi and others 1998 SCMR 2268 (ii) Zain Yar Khan v. Chief Engineer CRBC, WAPDA, D.I. Khan and another 1998 SCMR 2419.
13. It is a settled principle of law that each and every case is to be decided on its own peculiar circumstances aid facts as the law laid down by this Court in Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Muhammad Saleem 1994 SCMR 2213. The judgment cited by the learned counsel of the parties are distinguished on facts and law.
14. In view of what has been discussed above, all these petitions are' converted into appeals and same are accepted. Meaning thereby the appeals filed by the petitioners before the learned Service Tribunal shall be treated to be pending adjudication and learned Service Tribunal shall decide the same on merits after affording proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned in the terms of above mentioned short order. Let copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary of Punjab and Inspector-General of Police who are directed to issue necessary instructions to all the relevant quarters to pass orders immediately in terms of section 9(4) (supra) of the Ordinance, 2000. S.A.K./N-4/SC Appeals accepted.