' MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).-This is an appeal against the order dated 31s December, 1979 passed by the I.-G. Police Punjab, (respondent No, 3) where by he has desired the respondent No, 2 to examine the appellant's case to determine the suitability of his retention in service and pass suitable orders accordingly. He has also assailed the notice served upon the appellant on 9th February, 1980 by Superintendent of Police, Shang, which allegedly have been issued in pursuance of the aforessid impugned order calling upon the appellant to show-cause as to why be should not be dismissed from the service by way of General Police proceedings. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order passed by respondent No, 3 and the show cause notice issued by respondent No, I be set aside being illegal, without lawful authority and violative of Service Rules and the law.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant bad filed a repreftentation to respondent No, 3 against the punishment of Censure imposed by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad. While disposing the representation vide order dated 31st December, 1979, respondent No, 3 observed that the appellant had a thoroughly bad record and in view of consecutive bad Annual Confidential Reports departmental proceeding as envisaged under rule 13.17 (2) of Police Rules should have been instituted. He also observed that the D.I.-G.P. May examine the case of the appellant to determine the suitability of retention of the appellant in service and to pass suitable orders. It appears that when this order reached the Superintendent of Police he issued the impugned show- cause notice.
3. The parties have been heard. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that rule 13.17 of the Punjab Police Rules is not attracted to the case and the impugned show cause notice is illegal. It has also been argued that in view of the direction issued by the 1.-G. Police there is no hope that the Superintendent of Police would pass the order with due independent application of mind.
4. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has argued that the present appeal is not competent because the appellant is not an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. He has also submitted that the impugned order is just a notice and no original or appellate order in the departmental proceedings has been passed against the appellant. As such, the present appeal is not competent. Regarding the apprehension of the appellant that the Superintendent of Police would not apply his mind independently, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that there, is nothing on the record to show that the Superintendent of Police is prejudiced against the appellant or that he is under the influence of the I.-G. Police It has also been submitted that the 1-0. Police had left it to the discretion of the Superintendent of Police to pass suitable orders after examining merits of the case.
5. We have considered the arguments of the parties with full devotion and have also perused the record. We have no hesitation to hold that no original or appellate order giving any cause of action has been passed by the Departmental Authorities against the appellant and that the appellant is not an aggrieved person within the meaning of section of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. In the absence of any cogent reasons and evidence on record we cannot infer that merely on account of the observation of respondent No, 3 in the order dated 31st December, 1979, the Superintendent of Police would not apply his min independently.
6. In view of the above we hold that the present appeal is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to the costs.