2013 PLP 395 (SCMR)
DPO CHINIOT and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AYUB — Respondent
| Citation | 2013 PLP 395 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ |
| Parties | DPO CHINIOT and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AYUB — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Police Order (22 of 2002) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 395 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Police Order (22 of 2002) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 395 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 395 (SCMR) (DPO CHINIOT and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AYUB — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawar Ikram Bhatti, Additional A.-G. and Shams ul Haq, DSP Legal, Chiniot for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th December, 2012.
- 2. Learned Additional Advocate-General refers to Article 23 of Police Order, 2002 to contend that it is the District Police Officer who is the competent authority for appointing officers of the junior ranks. The afore-referred provision read as under:--
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 4-1-2012 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.1934 of 2011).
Arts. 23 & 2(xii)
Initiation of proceedings against sub-inspector
Scope
District Police Officer (DPO) initiated proceedings against sub-inspector/respondent
Service Tribunal allowed appeal of sub-inspector mainly on the ground that competent authority to initiate proceedings against him was Regional Police Officer (RPO)
Order of Service Tribunal was violative of Arts.23 and 2(xii) of Police Order, 2002
Proceedings against sub-inspector were rightly initiated by the District Police Officer (DPO)
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, impugned judgment was set aside and appeal filed by sub-inspector was deemed to be pending before the Service Tribunal, which was to be decided afresh on merits.
Judgment & Decree
Respondent's appeal was allowed mainly on the ground that the impugned order was passed by the District Police Officer whereas the Competent Authority is the Regional Police Officer. Respondent at the relevant time was a Sub-Inspector.
2. Learned Additional Advocate-General refers to Article 23 of Police Order, 2002 to contend that it is the District Police Officer who is the competent authority for appointing officers of the junior ranks. The afore-referred provision read as under:-- "
23. Appointment of junior ranks.
Subject to rules, Head of District Police shall be the appointing authority for junior ranks." The expression "junior ranks" has been defined in Article 2(xii) which reads as follows:-- 2(xii) "junior ranks" means: members of the police of and below the rank of Inspector as set out in the First Schedule."
3. Confronted with the above, respondent submits that since his appeal was not decided on merit, it may be remanded to the Tribunal to decide it afresh.
4. The stand taken by respondent is fair. The Service Tribunal allowed the appeal mainly on the ground that the competent authority to initiate proceedings against the Sub-Inspectors is only the Regional Police Officer which is violative of the afore-referred provision of law.
5. In view of the above, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. Respondent's appeal before the Service Tribunal shall be deemed to be pending before the Service Tribunal to be decided afresh within a month of the receipt of this order. Respondents is directed to appear before the Service Tribunal on 26-12-2012. MWA/D-5/SC Petition allowed.