1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Taj Muhammad, ex-Constable No. 574 of district Sahiwal, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal, and Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the orders of respondents be set aside and he be reinstated in service. 3. Brief facts of the case arc that the appellant joined Police Force on 9-5-1982, and kept on working there till 13-10-1984. The appellant was detailed to take examination for P.R.T.C. at Multan in which he appeared twice but except in one paper i.e. Pakistan Penal Code, he was declared successful in all other subjects. His services were terminated by order dated 13-10-1984, as he had failed to qualify the examination and was discharged under Police Rule 12.21 on account of his inefficiency and dis-interestedness for acquiring his professional training and skill. The appellant filed appeal before the learned I.-G. Police, Punjab, which was also rejected. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has only relied on the order dated 28-3-1985, passed by the Additional Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, in the case of Khalid Riaz No: 1974 of Multan District, against the order of his discharge under Police Rule 12.21. He has submitted that the case of Khalid Riaz was similar to the case of the appellant and he was given one more chance to clear the test whereas in the case of the appellant discrimination has been made and he has been thrown out from service. 6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has defended the order of the learned S.P. and I.-G. Police, Punjab, on the ground that allowing of other chance was solely the discretion of the learned L-G. Police and every case has to be decided on its own merit, therefore, case of Khalid Riaz could not be quoted as precedent. 7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that there is no dispute with the fact that no body can claim extension for further period once he has failed to qualify the prescribed test and therefore, accept the argument of the learned District Attorney to this extent. However, in view of the fact that Khalid Riaz No. 1974 Constable of Multan District, was given a further chance to clear the examination, the grievance of the appellant may be correct to this extent that he has not been treated with same favour which was done in the case of Khalid Riaz although his case was similar in nature. 8. In view of the above we forward this case to learned I.-G. Police Punjab, for re-consideration, if he so deems feasible in view of the special circumstances of the appellant who claims to be the only bread-earner of a sizeable family of about 8 to 9 members and has no means to make both ends meet. We, therefore, send this case to the learned Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, for reconsideration. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. A.A./248/Sr. P Order accordingly.