2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(i) Whether the appellant was rightly discharged under rule 12.8 of the Police Rules, 1934? (ii) Whether the appellant had undergone two punishments, viz. relegation and discharge from service during the process?

6. On perusal of record, proceedings and hearing arguments at length, it has transpired that the replies to the above points for determination are as under: (i) Affirmative (ii) Negative. REASONS. (i) The rule 12.8 of the Police Rules, 1934 is very clear on the subject The relevant portion may be reproduced as under:‑‑ 12.8. Inspectors, Sergeants, Sub‑Inspectors and Assistant Sub Inspectors who are directly appointed will be considered to be on probation for three years and are liable to be discharged to any time within the period of their probation if they fail to pass the prescribed C examinations, including the riding test, or are guilty of grave misconduct or are deemed for sufficient reasons, to be unsuitable for service in the Police .. ..No. appeal lies against an order of discharge. " Thus, in view of the foregoing, the appellant has hardly any case for reinstatement. Admittedly, the appellant chose to remain absent during the training period for a substantial period of 118 days which act does not justify his continuance in the police department. He cannot be, by any standards, considered as part of disciplined force, hence, action taken against him by the respondent No.2 is fully in accordance with the rules. (ii) The learned counsel argued that appellant was punished twice, i.e. relegation and discharge from service. We are not inclined to accept this argument. It seems that the respondent No.1 has acted beyond his authority to relegate the appellant after having reported against him to the respondent No.2. In fact, he should have awaited the response of the competent Authority, i.e. respondent No.2 but for reasons not known, the respondent No.1 rushed to relegate the appellant immediately after reporting against him. Thus, the suo Motu act of relegation by the respondent No.1 is ambiguous, void and bad in law for which the respondent No‑3 should have taken serious cognizance instead of sufficing to issue memorandum of reprimand. , The learned counsel for appellant has produced certain reinstatement orders of the Assistant Sub‑Inspectors passed by the respondent No‑

3. However, these orders appears to have been scrutinized by a Scrutiny Committee. Besides, such orders cited might have different merits as reasonable application of mind seems to have been resorted in such cases and most of the orders are speaking. The case of the appellant would hardly get any blanket cover of the aforesaid instance purporting to reinstatement of these officials.

7. In view of the aforesaid findings, we are of the firm view that the action taken by respondent No.2 against the appellant above named meets all the requisite principles of law coupled with rule 12.8 of the Police p Rules, 1934. Thus, this appeal lacks any force of law, rationale and principles of administrative justice. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order to costs. Announced in open Court Given under our hands and Seal of this Tribunal an this 4th day of October, 2001 at Karachi. H.B.T./77/K Appeal dismissed