1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑The appellant Muhammad Asif was working as A.S.I. at Orangi Town Police Station, Karachi when he was awarded major penalty of compulsory retirement by order dated 21‑11‑1992 of Senior Superintendent of Police District West Karachi. The appellant preferred departmental appeal to the DIGP against the order of his compulsory retirement but the same was rejected vide order of the DIGP dated 10‑2‑1993. Instead of assailing the DIGP's order in service appeal before this Tribunal the appellant approached the IGP in revision petition which too was dismissed by the IGP's order dated 18‑3‑1994. It was against the latter order that appellant filed the present appeal on 29‑3‑1994. The disciplinary action was started against the appellant with service of show‑cause notice dated 3‑10‑1992 on him. The grounds of action as specified in the said show‑cause notice read as under:‑‑ "Reportedly you were mixed up with criminals while posted at T.P.X Police Station and working in Special Staff and instance came to notice that you indulged in such activities." The appellant submitted his reply denying the above allegations. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed which ultimately led to the filing of the present appeal as mentioned above. We heard Mr. M.L. Shahani for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari, A.A.‑G. on behalf of the official respondents. We also went through i lie relevant record necessary for disposal of the appeal. It would appear that appeal was admitted to regular hearing subject to question of limitation which was to be decided at the time of regular hearing. On the point of limitation the appellant's learned counsel invited our attention to the Supreme Court's order dated 28‑3‑1994 in Civil Petition No. 5K of 1994 whereby the appeal of the petitioner Muhammad Anwar from the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 18‑11‑1993 was admitted to regular hearing. The perusal of the said order would show that leave to file appeal was granted, as the language used in the rules 12 and 14 of the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred as the said rules) required consideration. However, appellant's learned counsel informed us that the said case was still pending before the Supreme Court‑ and no definite decision was yet available in the case. As such no authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court was made to overrule the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court with regard to filing of second appeal by the police personnel. In this connection we may refer to the authority of Supreme Court reported as Malik Muhammad Khan v. I.G.P. (1992 PLC (C.S.) 11161 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme court mad taken the view that only one appeal could be filed against the original order and order of appellate‑authority would be final. It was further observed that time spent in filing and prosecuting the second appeal before the higher Departmental Authority could not be taken into consideration in computing the period of limitation. Consequently the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal dated 20‑4‑1991 in Appeal No. 23 of 1991 was upheld. . The dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid reported case applied with full force in the instant case. The appellant who was ASI when he was compulsorily retired had already exhausted his right of one appeal when his departmental appeal from the SSP's order of the compulsory retirement was rejected. It has been repeatedly held by this Tribunal in identical cases that all the civil servant including police personnel were to be treated alike as regards the exercise of right of appeal. Section 23(1) of Sindh Civil Servants Act which speaks of such right is recorded as under:‑‑ "23.‑‑(1) Where a right to prefer an appeal or apply for review in respect of any order relating to the terms and conditions of his service is provided to a civil servant under any rules applicable to him, such appeal or application shall, except as may be otherwise prescribed, be made within thirty days of the date of such order:" Obviously the above provision of law confers right of only one appeal on civil servant in respect of any order relating to terms and conditions of his service. The Police Rules of 1934 which obviously govern police personnel up to Inspectors of Police contain a definite provision in this regard. It is sub‑rule (2) of Rule 16.29 of the Police Rules which reads as under:‑‑ There shall be one appeal only from the original order and the order of Appellate Authority shall be final." Thus, even the Police Rules speak of only one appeal. However, the appellant's learned counsel placed reliance on rule 12 of the said rules which no doubt provides for suo motu revision by I.‑G.P. But our considered view is that the language of section 12 makes it abundantly clear that the said revision cannot be claimed as a right. It is discretionary power vested in I.‑G.P. who may or may not exercise the same. It is absolutely for the IGP's own satisfaction about correctness or otherwise of the lower authority's order. The appellant who has been given the express right of appeal from the order passed against him cannot and should not again be permitted to invoke the IGP's revisional power for achieving the same relief which he failed to get through appeal. If such concession was extended to police personnel, it would give rise to arbitrary discrimination so far other civil servants were concerned, because they are allowed only right of one appeal. It would appear that in the instant case the IGP did not exercise the revisional powers suo mote but he did it on the appellant's motion. For the above reasons we see no justification to condone the period consumed `by the appellant in filing and prosecuting the petition of revision before the IGP against the order of DIGP. Consequently the appeal being time‑barred, is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T/1040/Sr.S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ? Appeal dismissed.