1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
AQAL MAND Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE, N.JW.F.P., PESHAWAR and 2 others
| Citation | 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal N.‑W.F.P. |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Pervez Khan, Chairman Sahibzada Muhammad Faridoon Khan, Member |
| Parties | AQAL MAND Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE, N.JW.F.P., PESHAWAR and 2 others |
| Primary Law | North‑West Frontier Province Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: North‑West Frontier Province Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal N.‑W.F.P. bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Pervez Khan, Chairman Sahibzada Muhammad Faridoon Khan, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (AQAL MAND Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE, N.JW.F.P., PESHAWAR and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Atiq‑ur‑Rehman Qazi for Appellant
- Sultan Mohammad, Prosecuting Inspector for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Rr.5 & 6‑‑Dismissal from service for misconduct‑‑Appellant charge‑sheeted for receiving illegal gratification and proceeded against by authority viz Superintendent of Police‑‑Major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed by Deputy Inspector‑General of Police‑‑Action taken by Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, held, was illegal, without jurisdiction and void ab initio because he was the appellate authority and could not take upon himself the role of the authority‑ Impugned order set aside, appellant re‑instated with back benefits and case remanded to Superintendent of Police for taking action in the matter from stage where Deputy Inspector‑General of Police passed impugned order.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑The appellant was serving as Head Constable at Police Station Chakesar, District Swat, when a show‑cause notice was served upon him by respondent No,3 for receiving illegal gratification from one Noor Habib resident of village Sarkool P.S. Chakesar, District, Swat, His reply did not satisfy the respondent and the charge‑sheet/summary of allegation was issued to him. He submitted his reply and an enquiry was conducted but no action was taken by the said respondent. Instead the then respondent No.2 issued him the show‑cause notice and finally dismissed him from service. He filed an appeal before the I.‑G.P. but he failed to obtain the goal; hence the present appeal before the Tribunal oh the ground that the impugned action was illegal, ultra vires of the law and rules and without jurisdiction. Respondents submitted the written statement by denying all allegations. The arguments were heard and in the light of the material on record we intend to dispose of the appeal as under: It is not denying the fact that respondent No.3 was the authority, competent to initiate the action against the appellant. On receipt of the enquiry report nothing was done by him, when in the meanwhile the then respondent No.2, the appellate forum took the reigns in his hands and awarded the major penalty to the appellant, 1 who was constrained to approach the respondent No.1 to seek his redress. The act of the then respondent No.2 was illegal, without jurisdiction and void ab-initio because under the rules he was the appellate authority and he could not take upon himself the role of the authority. Under no circumstance he was empowered to exercise concurrent role in service matters. The functions and powers of various officers to deal in service matters having been dealt with in the rules applicable to the Police force and from no where it can be presumed that he was competent to take the impugned action. On this short ground we accept the present appeal, set aside the impugned orders by remanding the case to respondent No.3 to take action in the matter from the stage from where the then respondent No.2 proceeded against the appellant. The appellant stands re‑instated with all back benefits from the date he was dismissed from service. Parties are left to bear their own costs and file be consigned to the record room. S. Q. /73/Sr.N Appeal accepted.