1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ASHFAQ AHMAD Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, N.W.F.P., PESHAWAR and 6 others
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal N.W.F.P. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Siddique Khattak and Taj Muhammad Khan, Members |
| Parties | ASHFAQ AHMAD Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, N.W.F.P., PESHAWAR and 6 others |
| Primary Law | Police Rules, 1934 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Police Rules, 1934 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal N.W.F.P. bench comprising: Muhammad Siddique Khattak and Taj Muhammad Khan, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ASHFAQ AHMAD Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, N.W.F.P., PESHAWAR and 6 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Atiqur Rehman Qazi for Appellant.
- Lutfullah Khan, P.D.S.P. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
R. 13.10 (2)
Civil servant socking substantive promotion in rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, initially was appointed as Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police and subsequently was brought on promotion list `E' and was promoted as officiating Sub-Inspector
While considering case of admission to list `E' of officiating Sub-Inspectors of Police for substantive promotion in rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, officers were required to be given independent charge of a police station for assessing their suitability and testing their capabilities
Civil servant admittedly was posted as Station House Officer atone place where he reported for duty, but later his posting as such was cancelled by Authority
Civil servant's name was not considered for promotion as substantive Sub-Inspector for the reason that he had not held independent charge of S.H.O. of a Police Station for one year as required under relevant rules as such Authority declined promotion as substantive Sub -Inspector declaring him incapable of running post of Station House Officer independently
Early appointment of civil servant as Sub-Inspector was cancelled after about 3 days and that cancellation was more for other reasons than for reasons of inefficiency and incapability
After such cancellation at one time he again independently worked as S.H.O. at another Police Station when incharge of that station was transferred and no complaint was received against civil servant, but he could not work as S.H.O. until he was posted as such by Superintendent of Police concerned
Civil servant, thus was not at fault if he was not given an independent charge of post of S.H.O.
To declare civil servant as incapable of running post of S.H.O. independently, would be unjustified, unless he was tested by giving him posting first and allowing him to stay there for a reasonable time so as to assess his capability and efficiency-- Civil servant could fulfil requirements of concerned Rules only if he was given an opportunity of working independently as S.H.O. and until he was posted as such
Assessment of capability of civil servant, would be quite unfair, mala fide and one sided without evaluating facts
Nothing being on record to show that civil servant was inefficient and incapable, depriving him of his due rights without any convincing grounds was not justified.
Judgment & Decree
INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, N.W.F.P., PESHAWAR and 6 others Appeal No. 193 of 1990, decided on 8th May, 101.
R. 13.10 (2)
Civil servant socking substantive promotion in rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, initially was appointed as Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police and subsequently was brought on promotion list `E' and was promoted as officiating Sub-Inspector
While considering case of admission to list `E' of officiating Sub-Inspectors of Police for substantive promotion in rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, officers were required to be given independent charge of a police station for assessing their suitability and testing their capabilities
Civil servant admittedly was posted as Station House Officer atone place where he reported for duty, but later his posting as such was cancelled by Authority
Civil servant's name was not considered for promotion as substantive Sub-Inspector for the reason that he had not held independent charge of S.H.O. of a Police Station for one year as required under relevant rules as such Authority declined promotion as substantive Sub -Inspector declaring him incapable of running post of Station House Officer independently
Early appointment of civil servant as Sub-Inspector was cancelled after about 3 days and that cancellation was more for other reasons than for reasons of inefficiency and incapability
After such cancellation at one time he again independently worked as S.H.O. at another Police Station when incharge of that station was transferred and no complaint was received against civil servant, but he could not work as S.H.O. until he was posted as such by Superintendent of Police concerned
Civil servant, thus was not at fault if he was not given an independent charge of post of S.H.O.
To declare civil servant as incapable of running post of S.H.O. independently, would be unjustified, unless he was tested by giving him posting first and allowing him to stay there for a reasonable time so as to assess his capability and efficiency-- Civil servant could fulfil requirements of concerned Rules only if he was given an opportunity of working independently as S.H.O. and until he was posted as such
Assessment of capability of civil servant, would be quite unfair, mala fide and one sided without evaluating facts
Nothing being on record to show that civil servant was inefficient and incapable, depriving him of his due rights without any convincing grounds was not justified. Atiqur Rehman Qazi for Appellant. Lutfullah Khan, P.D.S.P. for Respondents.