2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD IQBAL KAZI (MEMBER).

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant above-named was directly appointed as Lady Head Constable on 30-5-1984 by the S.S.P., Nawabshah where after she passed out the usual Training Course from the Police Training School, 5hahadadpur. Subsequently, the appellant was transferred to Karachi Range by respondent No.1 vide order dated 8-5-1992 followed by promotion to the next higher grade to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police by Deputy Inspector-General of Police/respondent No.2 vide orders dated 1-5-1994 alongwith four other colleagues. Such promotion was subject to undergo Intermediate Training Course for regularization which was attended successfully by the appellant vide notification dated 11-8-1997.

2. Later on, the case of appellant for confirmation in the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector and inclusion in list 'E' was referred to the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) but the same was deferred alongwith other colleagues for want of ACR's. The Committee was chaired by the then Deputy Inspector-General, Karachi Range. However, the DPC was again held which culminated in the issuance of Notification dated 13-4-1998 produced by appellant's counsel at Annexure "I" whereby, appellant was confirmed in the rank of A.S.-I. and admitted to list "E" alongwith 8 others colleagues. The afore mentioned notification purports to say as under:-- "The following L/A.S.-Is. of Karachi Range whose cases for confirmation in the rank of L/A.S.-I., admission to list "E" and promotion to the rank of Offg. Lady Sub-Inspector were pending/deferred in previous DPCs, are hereby confirmed in the rank of L/A.S.-I., admitted to list "E" and promoted to the rank of Offg. Lady Sub-Inspector (they will retain their seniority alongwith their batchmates), their date of promotion and Range No. allotted as shown against each, subject to clearance of D P C:-- S.No. Rank Name & Parentage Posting Range No. Date of Promotion 1 L/ASI Neelofar Waseem D/o M. Waseem Central 2702/K 12-12-1997 2 L/ASI Zaki Mohd. Yaqoob D/o M. Yaqoob South 2703/K 12-12-1997 3 L/ASI Rifat Perveen D/o Abdul Haq. South 2704/K 12-12-1997 4 L/ASI Zill-e-Huma D/o Mashooq Ali. " Malir 2705/K 12-12-1997 5 L/ASI Farzana Nasreen D/o M.Hussain. East 2706/K 12-12-1997 6 L/ASI Sultan D/o Mossa South 2707/K 12-12-1997 7 L/ASI Najmun Nisa D/d. S. Ashfaq Hussain. West 2708/K 12-12-1997 8 L/ASI Zaibun Nisa D/o S. Ashfaq Hussain. West 2709/K 12-12-1997 9 L/ASI Shamim Fatma D/o Riast Ali Khan South 2710/K 12-12-1997 29/Kar

3. Appellant's cause of action leading to file the instant appeal under section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunal Act, 1973 arose when the incumbent DIG/respondent No.2 issued notification (Annexure-A) produced by the learned counsel for appellant whereby the former notification pertaining to the promotion of the appellant (Annexure-I) was withdrawn and she was demoted with retrospective effect. Thus, the appellant's position was brought to square one and admitted to "D" list. Such notification was issued on 15-6-1999 singly and only in respect of the appellant; whereas, the position of her remaining 8 colleagues remained untouched.

4. The appellant having come to know her dismal fate preferred departmental appeal before the respondent No. 1 which was rejected hence, the instant appeal before this Tribunal. Such attempts made by the appellant are admittedly within the time-frame of section 4 of the Act.

5. After perusal of record and proceedings of the case and affording arguments at length of the learned counsel for appellant and the learned A.A.-G. for all respondents, we have concluded to determine the following points involving important legal implications:- (i) Whether the promotion of the appellant was not made in accordance with the settled process and procedure? (ii) Whether promotion allowed to the appellant could be scrapped or recalled by the same authority? (iii) Whether the impugned Notification causing demotion of the appellant has any force of law?

6. After thoughtful consideration of the record, arguments of both the learned counsel and the case-law produced by the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the firm view that the aforesaid points for consideration are negative for the following reasons:-- (i) Perusal of record reveals that the appellant along with 4 others colleagues were promoted by respondent No.2 on 1-5-1994 which was subject to undergo Intermediate School Course for regularization-Annexure "D" produced by appellant's counsel. Subsequently, the appellant successfully attended the requisite course and notified as such. Later on, the appellant was promoted to the rank of A.S.-I.P. and admitted to list "E" and was confirmed as such alongwith 8 others colleagues. Such notification was issued by respondent No.2 viz. the then DIG, Karachi. Evidently, the aforesaid process resulted in the regularization of the appellant to the rank of A.S.-I., admission in list "E", allotment of Range and clear determination of her seniority which was never challenged at any stage till the issuance of the impugned notification suo motu issued by respondent No.2 (who was the successor of the previous DIG). Besides, such notification issued subsequently does not contain any ground for contemplation of such drastic action nor the appellant was, afforded chance for exhausting her remedies as provided under the relevant E&D Rules. From the material facts elucidated above, it has been fully established that the appellant was promoted in accordance with the settled procedure, rules and on the basis of merit. (ii) The learned counsel for appellant has argued that the process of promotion and rescindment underwent through 4 DIG's including the respondent No.2 who knelled the final nail in the career of the appellant without even a slight mention of the 8 remaining colleagues of the appellant through the impugned notification. On perusal of the impugned notification forming basis of the instant appeal, it transpires that whereas, the appellant was promoted alongwith 8 others officials in similar circumstances, it has been only the appellant who bore the brunt rather wrath of the Police Department. No substantial reasons seems to have been assigned prompting the respondent No.2 to resort to contemplate drastic action against the appellant rescinding thereby, the action of his predecessor of equal rank and status. Unfortunately, the IGP-respondent No.1 to whom departmental appeal was made also failed to apply proper and rational mind nor afforded an opportunity to verify the facts minutely or hear the appellant personally. The agony and mental torture suffered by appellant seems pathetic so much so that the rule of thumb was made to prevail upon the rule of law. The learned counsel for appellant has come with a ruling of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in Supreme Court Monthly Review 1990 SCMR 1414 decided on 25th July, 1989 passed in case against the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal wherein the IGP. Punjab as petitioner, the same is reproduced as under:-- "S.4. Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 212(3).

Leave to Orders earlier passed by Inspector-General of Police, confirming respondents /police officers out of turn as a special case in relaxation of relevant rules in recognition of their commendable performance, were rescinded a few months after by his successor without notice to and without hearing the affected police officers. Where rights had come to vest, ground taken by succeeding Inspector-General of Police could not be held to be sufficient to justify rescission of order competently passed. Order of rescission passed by the succeeding Inspector General of Police, was rightly dismissed by Tribunal in circumstances". The above ruling of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has categorically held that the order of decision decision passed by the succeeding IGP, has rightly been dismissed by the Tribunal in such circumstances. Thus, we are of the firm opinion that the orders purporting to decision by respondent No.2 of such order made by his predecessor are null and void, ab initio and in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. (iii) The foregoing provides us ample vision to discuss the third and last point of determination. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned notification issued by respondent No.2 does not hold good in the eyes of law, equity and fair play. The negation of principles of natural justice are conspicuously visible and thus lack any force of law, whatsoever.

7. In view of the elucidations vividly discussed above duly supported by the citations held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, we uphold the prayer of the appellant and allow the appeal with no award to casts. Consequently, the respondents are directed to restore the status of appellant 'confirmed Lady Assistant Sub-Inspector w.e.f. 13-4-1998 as notified earlier vide Annexure-I which is part of the record with pecuniary benefits in case these are due. H.B.T./129/KST Appeal allowed.