SAHIB KHAN, J.--- The briefly narrated background of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as Foot Constable on 31st October 2005, in the then Northern Areas (Gilgit-Baltistan) Police Department after observing formalities required for appointment. After his selection petitioner undergo the requisite training for the job. However, the A petitioner was dismissed from his service by the respondent No,3 vide his Order No,SP/GZR-1(13)/13290-97/06 on the charge of being involved in the case F.I.R. No,18/06. His appeal against the order was also turndown on 19-10-2007. The petitioner impugned both the orders through his writ petition before this Court.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the F.I.R. No,18 of 2006 of Police Station Chatur Khand the then SI/SHO falsely named the petitioner while the petitioner was on duty at stadium, where a foot ball mach was playing. The learned counsel referred the order of the Judicial Magistrate dated 16-6-2009, whereby the learned Magistrate has honourably acquitted the petitioner from the charges, inspite of that the respondents are not ready to obey the order of the Judicial Magistrate and reinstate the petitioner in his service since the petitioner had no option except to knock the door of this Court through instant petition.
4. On the other hand learned Assistant Advocate-General assisted by the PDSP opposed the contentions of the opposite side. They submitted that the petitioner was a probationer hence his service was liable to be terminated as and when the respondents so deemed fit. The second point raised by the respondents was that the respondents, even in the presence of acquittal order by the competent Court, empowered under Police Rule to hold inquiry and remove him from his job. We repeatedly adjourned the hearing for referring the law on the points raised by the parties. The learned Counsel for petitioner referred 2002 SCM R 57 while respondents could hardly refer the rule 12.21 (a) of Police Rules, 1934 in support of their respective contentions.
5. The sole allegation levelled against the petitioner shown in the order No,Sp/GZR-1(13)/13290- 97/06 dated 9 October, 2006 is the criminal case registered under sections 224/223 P.P.C. Of Police Station Chaturkhand and on the recommendation made by the inquiry officer for removal from service, the petitioner was removed by respondent No,3 under rule 12.21(a) of the Police Rules, 1934 without waiting for the result of Criminal case registered vide F.I.R. No,18 of 2006. The learned Judicial Magistrate after going through the detail process of trial acquitted the petitioner from the charges honourably. On our query it was submitted that no appeal against this order has yet been preferred by the prosecution. Hence the order of Judicial Magistrate has gained finality.
6. It is on the record that the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed vide No,IGP- 1(77)9132/2007 dated 15 September, 2007 by the Assistant Inspector-General Police Head Quarter with remarks " The appeal filed by the ex-FC has been examined in this office thoroughly and filed having no merits" The procedure adopted and the authority exercised for disposal of like crucial matter is neither describable nor found competent to function as quasi Judicial authority over an appeal against the order passed by the similar position holder. This departmental appeal at least should have heard and decided by the authority competent in law but was examined in office. The authorities should have wait for the fate of criminal case, but found to be in hurry while passing the dismissal order and disposal of appeal prior to the findings of the Court, inspite of the fact that the petitioner was not charged except that in the F.I.R . We just to examine and look its applicability reproduce the rule 12.21 (a) of-Police Rules 1934 and reads as follows;--- 12.21 Discharge or inefficients.--- A Constable who is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer may be discharged by the Superintendent at any time within three years of enrolment.
There shall be no appeal against an order of discharge under this rule.
7. The concept given in the above reproduced rule is not meant for the facts and figure as has been stated in this case. The competent Court has answered the charges in negative. We humbly agree with the view taken by their lordship in the judgment referred by the counsel of petitioner i.e, 2002 SCM R 57.
8. For the reasons stated supra we allowed this petition, set aside the orders dated 9-10-2006 and 19-10-2007 by the respondents and directed that the petitioner be reinstated in service with back benefits for the period he had not gainfully employed elsewhere. Parties would bear their own costs.
' File.