2002MLD916 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S.3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Intro‑Court appeal‑‑ Single Judge of High Court while hearing Constitutional petition against appellant who was Station House Officer of Police Station had directed the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police to look into the conduct of the appellant and "to ensure that such persons were not to be posted as Station House Officers as they were insult not only to Country, Nation Community, but also to the Force they represent"‑‑‑Nothing was on record to indicate that as to what material found favour with the Single Judge to disbelieve the appellant and to pass such an order against him‑‑ Appellant was neither issued any show‑cause notice to explain his conduct nor to file written reply‑‑‑Observation and direction given by Single Judge to Deputy Inspector‑General being arbitrary, could not be sustained in law‑‑‑Order of Single Judge was set aside in Intro‑Court Appeal. Nemo for Appellant. M. Qasim Khan, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 29th October, 2001. Through this appeal the appellant has challenged the order, dated 28‑3‑1996 in terms of which the learned Single Judge in Chamber while disposing of an application in the main petition directed the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range to look into the conduct of the respondent and to ensure that such persons are not posted as Station House Officers. They are insult not only for the Country, Nation, Community but also to the force they represent. Learned counsel for the appellant is not present and he is stated to be busy before some other Bench. However, since this is an old matter, we are not inclined to adjourn this case. Moreso when in terms of the order dated 15‑5‑1996 we note that the appellant has died. The death of the appellant does not necessarily make the appeal infructuous as the legal heirs may like to pursue the same if the order impugned is likely, to adversely affect pensionary benefits which are likely to accrue. Therefore, we proceed to examine and decide the appeal on merit.

2. Vide the impugned order the learned Single Judge in Chamber while hearing a Constitutional petition filed by Mst. Jindan seeking d'irgction against the S.H.O. that she should not be harassed passed the observation. We note that on 27‑3‑1996 the learned Single Judge in Chamber sent a copy of the petition to the learned Assistant Advocate-General to secure presence of, respondent‑Station House Officer i.e. appellant Dilawar Hussain. On the suit date the respondent‑Station House Officer denied the allegation and submitted that no police officer had taken the cattle of respondent/writ petitioner into custody. He further submitted that "in fact that same were rounded up by the Lumbardar and the Chowkidar as nobody was there to look after them. The same are not in the cattle pond of the District Council. He has produced a photocopy of the receipt. He has assured not to cause any harassment, insult or humiliation to the persons other than the accused". There is nothing on record to indicate that as to what a material found favour with the learned Single Judge in Chamber to disbelieve the Station House Officer and passed the impugned order. The respondent S.H.O. was neither issued any show‑cause notice to explain his conduct nor to file written reply. In the afore‑referred circumstances the observation and the direction given in the impugned order are arbitrary and cannot be sustained in law. The order is, therefore, set aside. The appeal is allowed. H.B.T./D‑35/L Appeal allowed