' MUHAMMAD ISHAQ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-These for appeals which raise common question of law, and are based on similar facts are being disposed of by this single order, call into question the impugned order dated 15th August, 1977 passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Peshawar Range, Peshawar whereby the services of the for appellants were terminated with effect from 13th August, 1977 (F. N.) without any reason whatsoever.
2. The facts leading to the for appeals are that the appellants vide Notification No, 9591/E dated 30th June, 1976 were appointed as Inspectors with effect from 1st July, 1976 (F. N.) subject to the usual terms and conditions prescribed under the Rules governing their services, that soon after their appointment they were sent to Police Training School, Hangu, where they successfully completed their training and the prescribed practical courses and they had been serving as regular Inspectors ever since their appointment, that on 15th August, 1977 the Deputy Inspector- General of Police, Peshawar Range, Peshawar issued the impugned order whereby the services of the for appellants were terminated with effect from 13th August, 1977 (F. N.) without any reasons ; that on coming to know of the impugned order all the for appellants filed their respective appeals/representations with respondent No, 2 on 8th September, 1977 which have not been decided in spite of lapse of the prescribed period of ninety days and therefore the appellants have brought their grievance to this Tribunal questioning the impugned order as without jurisdiction, mala fide in law, Corum non judice and as such without lawful authority and according to them it is null and void.
3. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record at length. The learned counsel for the appellants put great stress on the point that the appellants were appointed to their respective posts under the order of the then Government and they bad also completed their training and they were at their respective jobs, therefore, their services could not be terminated and as such, their termination order is without lawful authority.
The learned Government Pleader on the other side submitted that their appointments were made by the then Political Government and no Rules and Regulations were observed at the time of their appointments. According to him the then Chief Minister had made departure from the relevant rules qua the appointment of the appellants, and as such according to him the order of termination of the appellants was quite correct and calls for no interference. From the record as it stands, it is clear that the appellants were not appointed as required under the Rules, for all the appellants were appointed as Inspectors of Police and there is no mention of direct appointment of Inspectors in the N.-W. F. P. Police Rules. Inspector can be appointed through promotion. In this respect, the statement of Mr. Mohammad Saeed Khan, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, in or opinion, clinches the matter with regard to the appointments and termination of services of the appellants. Vide order dated 5th May, 1979 the Bench consisting of the then Chairman and a Member of the N.-W. F. P. Service Tribunal passed the following order : "On a careful examination of the record we noticed that there are certain important links with regard to factual position of the case which are missing in the official record made available to us by the respondents in absence whereof it is not possible for us to ascertain some of the important facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal. We feel that Mr. Mohammad Saeed Khan, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, who issued the appointment order of the appellants as well as the orders for the termination of their services must be in the know of these facts and will be in a position to let us know about the same. In the circumstances, we direct that he should be summoned as a witness to appear before this Tribunal on 21st May, 1979 to give evidence."
' The very Deputy Inspector-General of Police was examined by the aforesaid Bench on 27th May, 1979. In his statement Mr. Mohammad Saeed Khan, Deputy Inspector General of Police stated that on 30th June, 1976 a letter was received from the Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P. Services and General Administration Department, Peshawar addressed to the Secretary to Government of N.-W.
F. P. Home Department, Peshawar and copy whereof endorsed to the Inspector-General of Police, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar stating therein that necessary appointment order on usual terms and conditions in respect of Inspectors of Police and Sub-Inspector of Police may be issued today. He further stated that according to this order, the Chief Minister N.-W. F. P. Had selected and appointed Syed Zahid Shah, Syed Mahir Shah, Syed Irshad All Shah and Syed Anwar Shah, appellants as Inspector of Police. He went on stating that in compliance with the aforesaidd irection he issued order for the training of the aforesaid Inspectors. He also deposed that it was specifically stated in the above letter that the training of the selectees will, however, be for a period of three or for months so as to enable them to be appointed by the end of December, 1976. In the said statement the very Deputy Inspector-General of Police further stated that when a writ petition was lodged in the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar against the appointment of the appellants as Inspectors, an order in writing was received by him through the Chief Secretary to Government of N.-W. F. P. And Inspector-General of Police, N.-W.F.P. According to which the services of the appellants were terminated by the then Martial Law Administrator Zone 'B' and accordingly he issued the impugned order.
' From the above statement of Deputy Inspector-General of Palice, Peshawar, it is abundantly clear that the appellants were appointed under the order of the then Chief Minister and their services were terminated by the then Martial Law Administrator Zone B. In this state of the matter neither their appointments were made as required under the nor their services were terminated by the Inspector-General of Police or Deputy Inspector-General of Police. The appellants in their appeals have challenged the order of their termination as Corum non judiee, arbitrary, mala fide and without jurisdiction for, accordi4 to them, this order is, in utter disregard of the well-established principles of natural justice. However, at the same time they forgot that the appointments were also not made under relevant rules because Mr. Mohammad Saeed Khan Deputy Inspector- General of Police in hi statement stated that according to rule 12.6 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 which are still in force, the direct appointment in the rank o Inspector has to be made on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, and the Commission, is required to hold an examination of Degree Standard for them in subject given in the said Rules plus viva voce.
' According to him no Police Rule was either amended or relaxed in the matter of appointment of the appellants as Inspectors or in the matter of termination of their services. He further stated that he did not pass any independent order of his own either in the matter of appointment of the appellants or with regard to the termination of their Services. Now when the appellants allege that their termination order was not in accordance with the relevant Rules, therefore, it is without lawful authority. Likewise, their appointment order was also suffering from the same legal infirmities and in or opinion the order of appointment of the appellants was issued by the then Political Government o N.-W. F. P., contrary to law and issue such order the Deputy Inspector-., General of Police had authority to issue such order without prior recommendation of the Public Service Commission and thus the vacation o such an unlawful and irregular order was quite according to law.
4. Not only this, it will be profitable to make reference to section 12-A of the N.-W. F. P. Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1975 which reads as follows : "12-A. Certain persons to be liable to removal or reversion.-Nat withstanding anything contained in his terms and conditions of service a civil servant appointed or promoted during the period from first day of January, 1972 to the fifth day of July, 1977, may D be removed from service or reverted to his lower post or grade, as the case may be without notice, by the Governor or a person authorised by him in this behalf, on such date as the Governor, or, as the case may be, the person, so authorised may, in the public interest, direct."
5. The order of appointment of the appellants was made on 30th June, 1976 and their termination under the aforesaid Rules was quite according to law.
6. Viewed. From any angle the appeals merit no consideration and are hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.