1990 PLP 1238 (SCMR)
INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus AHMED MUSTAFA‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1238 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, Zaffar Hussain Mirza, Saad Saood Jan, Ali Hussain Qazilbash, and AS.Salam, JJ , |
| Parties | INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus AHMED MUSTAFA‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | North‑West Frontier Province Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1238 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: North‑West Frontier Province Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1238 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, CJ., Shafiur Rahman, Zaffar Hussain Mirza, Saad Saood Jan, Ali Hussain Qazilbash, and AS.Salam, JJ ,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1238 (SCMR) (INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus AHMED MUSTAFA‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th December, 1989.
- J.D. Akbarji, Advocate‑General N: W.F.P for the Appellants.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, dated 29‑7‑1984, passed in Writ Petition Na.163 of 1982). ‑‑‑R.5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.212(3) & 199‑‑‑Show‑cause notice for grave misconduct liable to major punishment and subsequent reversion‑‑ Police official impugned order of his reversion and show‑cause notice in High Court through Constitutional petition on the ground of mala fides which was accepted holding the order of reversion and issuance of show‑cause notice to be without lawful authority‑‑‑Legality‑‑‑Held: order of reversion and show‑cause notice pertained to the terms and conditions of service and under Art.212(2) of the Constitution only authority which could have been approached in the matter was Service Tribunal‑‑‑Constitutional petition before the High Court was not competent and thus, impugned order was not sustainable. J.D. Akbarji, Advocate‑General N: W.F.P for the Appellants.
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑‑This appeal by leave arises from the order of a learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court, dated 29‑7‑1984, whereby the writ petition of the respondent was accepted and his reversion and the show‑cause notice served upon him by the A.I‑G. Crime Branch, were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The respondent who was officiating as D.S.P. was served with a show -cause notice by the appellant on 25‑2‑1981 on the charges of grave misconduct liable to major punishment under the N.‑W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, and was also placed under suspension. The explanation submitted by him was found unsatisfactory, it entailed departmental inquiry but the findings were not approved by the appellant on the ground that the inquiry has not been conducted in proper manner and as such a fresh inquiry was ordered. This inquiry could not proceed because of certain lacuna in the efficiency and Discipline Rules, and therefore, the respondent was reverted to his substantive post of Sub‑Inspector in the interest of service. This punishment, however, hardened the attitude of the respondent and thus, he was served with a fresh show‑cause notice on 11‑4‑1982 under the N.‑W.F.P. ‑Police Rules, 1975. The respondent impugned both his order of reversion and the show‑cause notice in the High Court through a Constitutional petition on the ground of mala fides which was accepted on 29‑7‑1984 and the order of reversion and the show‑cause notice were held to be without lawful authority.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment of the High Court. The only question which has been raised before us by the learned counsel for the appellants is that since the matter involved was essentially with regard to the terms and conditions of service of the respondent, therefore, the only remedy open to him was to have gone before the Provincial Service Tribunal and his writ petition before the High Court was wholly incompetent. This was controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent whose stand was that since the very order reverting the respondent and issue of show‑cause notice were without jurisdiction, so the only remedy available to the respondent was to approach the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction, and, therefore, the High Court was justified in allowing the writ petition.
4. After considering the arguments we are of the view that this appeal must succeed. Admittedly the case pertained to the terms and conditions of service of the respondent and under Article 212(2) of the Constitution the only authority which could have been approached in the matter was the Service Tribunal. The writ petition before the High Court was not competent and thus the impugned order cannot be sustained.
5. As a result of the above, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. AA./1‑110/S Appeal allowed.