1987 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑ By this appeal appellant Ali Muhammad Shahani has impugned the order of his reversion from the post of Police Inspector to that of Police Sub‑Inspector. The operative part of the impugned order reads as under:‑ "Offg: Inspector Ali Muhammad Shahani of Sukkur Range is reverted to his substantive rank of Sub‑Inspector with immediate effect for the allegations of corruption as reported by the S.S.P./Sukkur vide his report No. ST/454, dated 19‑8‑1985." The appellant who was present in person was heard in support of his appeal and Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A.‑G. submitted his arguments on behalf of the respondents. The contention of the appellant was that his reversion amounted to reduction from the higher rank to lower rank within the meaning of Rule 16.4 of Police Rules, therefore, it could not be ordered without following the procedure laid down in Rule 16.19 of the said Rules. He invited our attention to the Government Notification No. SOIX REG(S&GAD)2/E/2‑75, dated 11th August, 1979 whereby the Members of the subordinate Police Service up to and including the rank of Inspector were excluded from the purview of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 and instead Police Rules were made applicable to them. On the other hand the learned A.A.‑G. submitted that since the appellant's reversion was from officiating position, no show‑cause notice was necessary and consequently no inquiry was called for. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the Supreme Court authority reported as Pakistan v. Hikmat Hussain PLD 1959 SC (Pak. )

107. No doubt in view of the notification referred to above by the appellant, subordinate Police personnel up to and including Police Inspector are governed by the Police Rules. It is also true that as envisaged by Rule 16.4 of the said Rules reversion from higher post is a reduction which can be ordered only after following the procedure laid down in Rule 16.19 of the said Rules. It was conceded at the bar that before passing of the impugned order of the appellant's reversion, neither show‑cause notice was given to him nor regular enquiry was held against him in accordance with the rules. Therefore, the question would arise if the impugned order could be struck down for the above reason. It would appear that despite the exclusion of the specified' police personnel from purview of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency) and Discipline) Rules, 1973, they continue to be governed by the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973. Section 12 of this Act provides that Civil Servant appointed to higher post or grade ad hoc or on temporary or, officiating basis shall be liable to reversion to his lower post or grade without notice. This is obviously in conflict with the position spelt out in Rule 16.4 read with Rule 16.19 of the Police Rules. In the event of such conflict section 12 referred to above which forms a part of the substantive law will prevail. Accordingly a civil servant including a police official can be reverted from ad hoc or temporary or officiating position without giving him any show‑cause notice. However, the reversion of the appellant from the Police Inspector's post was not simpliciter. The impugned order clearly shows that the appellant was reverted on the charge of corruption. Thus, his reversion was accompanied by a blemish. In other words he was condemned as a corrupt official without giving him an opportunity of showing cause against such condemnation. If there had been simple reversion without addition of the words 'for the allegations of corruption as reported by S.S.P., Sukkur vide his report No. ST/454, dated 19‑8‑1985' in the impugned order, the competent authority had the power to order such reversion without giving any notice to the appellant. But as has been mentioned in the said order, he lost his higher position of Inspector' on the ground of corruption charge, he was entitled to show‑cause notice. In other words the prescribed procedure as given in the Police Rules referred to above had to be followed. This view finds support from the Supreme Court authority reported as Muhammad Ibrahim v. Government of Pakistan P L D 1972 SC 332 wherein it was held:‑ "Government has the legal authority to terminate an officiating appointment at any time and it may do so for any reason relatable to exigencies of service. No show‑cause notice is necessary, in such a case. But if it is intended to revert an officer to an inferior post by way of penalty, a show‑cause notice is necessary notwithstanding that the appointment to the superior post was in an officiating capacity." Viewed in the light of above authority, the appellant's reversion was also made by way of punishment as it was based on charges oil corruption. Such reversion could only be ordered by observing the procedure contained in the aforesaid Police Rules. Since this was not done, the order of reversion was illegal. The case of Hikmat Hussain relied upon by the learned A.A.‑G. is distinguishable and, therefore, does not help the respondents. The reversion involved in the said case was free from taints and, therefore, cannot be placed at par with the appellant's reversion which carried a blemish of corruption. For above reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, with no order as to costs. M. Y. H. /89/Lb/S Appeal allowed.