' MUHAMMAD ISHAQ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Syed Zulfiqar Hussain, Prosecuting Sub-Inspector, was dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Kohat, vide order dated 15th January, 1978 on having been proved insubordinate. The Prosecuting Sub-Inspector appealed to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Peshawar Range, Peshawar but with no success. The appeal failed and was dismissed on 20th April, 1978 (issued on 22nd April, 1978 and received by the appellant on 25th April, 1978). He has now brought his grievance before this Tribunal.
2. The appellant Syed Zulfiqar Hussain was practising Lawyer at Dera Ismail Khan when he joined service as Prosecuting Sub-inspector, Dera Ismail Khan, in the year 1974 : that in the course of service he was transferred to Kohat as such under the control of Superintendent of Police, Kohat with effect from June, 1977, that thereafter his services were loaned to the Principal, Police Training School, Hangu, as a Law Instructor to teach the Forensic Science, medical jurisprudence, local and special laws to the Police personnel, i,e, P. S. Is/S. Is. Under training in Hangu Institution. On 29th September, 1977, the Principal Police Training School, Hangu directed the R. I. To issue a Parwana to all members of the staff to attend the daily morning parade for 40 minutes (till half time) in order to improve and ensure the effective supervision. The staff was also required to attend the evening parade to participate/ supervise and acquaint themselves with the mob dispersal and anti-riots drill. On receipt of this Parwana the appellant refused to obey the aforesaid order and did not attend the parade. A report about his absence was submitted to the Principal on 3rd October, 1977 by the concerned officer, and consequently his explanation was called, but instead of submitting his explanation the appellant asked for the copies of the aforesaid order and parade statement with a view to challenge the aforementioned order of the Principal. The Principal directed that the appellant should appear before him in the orderly Room. On 8th October, 1977, a meeting of the Law Staff had been called for and during the said meeting the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector was asked about the reasons for his non-attending the parade. The appellant, it is stated, in a very rude and aggressive mood replied that he had been specifically transferred to the Police Training School, Hangu for teaching the Prosecuting Sub-Inspectors Class and that he was not supposed to do parades. At the same time, he criticised the Principal for having adversely affected the studies of the Prosecuting Sub-Inspectors Class by asking the members of Law Staff to do parade.
According to the available record the appellant abused the Principal and thus the whole lot of Law Staff by saying that : {{URDU TEXT}} ' Accordingly he was suspended and after inquiry he was dismissed from service on 15th January, 1978 by the S.P., Kohat. His appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Peshawar was also dismissed, as indicated above.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Noor Elah Khan, Prosecuting Inspector for the respondents and have also gone through the relevant record. There is no denying, the fact that the Principal, Police Training, Hangu, issued a general order to a11 members of the Staff to attend the daily morning parade for 40 minutes. It has not been alleged much less proved that the Principal had any axe of his own to grind against the appellant before issuing the said order.
Now, it is to be seen as to whether the misconduct and insubordination has been proved on the part of the appellant. A perusal of the inquiry file would show that the Inquiry Officer had examined as many as ten witnesses including the Principal of the Police Training School, Hangu and all of them have stated with one voice that the appellant had abused the Principal as well as the Law Staff. The appellant was given full opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses and he did so, but he was unable to bring anything from their mouths to show that he did not abuse the Principal. The appellant also produced Mr. Ashraf Zeman A. S. I., in his defence who stated that he was absent on the day of occurrence and he was a room mate of the appellant for sometime. The appellant also submitted a reply on 2nd November, 1977 which is on page 44 of the Inquiry File and copy of which is filed on the appellate file which is Annexure VI. In the said reply the appellant mentioned that during the days of the incident he was suffering from depression and was mentally disturbed due to sickness. He in the said reply, admitted that he did attend the meeting of the Principal just after taking 2/3 tablets of different nature. According to the appellant, he did not and could not recollect what happened in the meeting and what sort of conversation took place between him and the Principal. A perusal of Annexure VI would show that the appellant himself admitted the allegations levelled against him but he stated that it was due to his ill-health and the disease from which he was suffering in those days. In the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, however, the appellant did not mention that either he was suffering from some disease or had taken some tablets due to which he could not understand what happened between him and the Principal. On the other hand, in the cross-examination directed against Mr. Muhammad Yaqub Khan (P.W. 5), the latter stated that "I remained as Prosecuting Inspector of the accused P.S.I. In the year 1975 I made many reports of misconduct to Superintendent of Police, Dera Ismail Khan, on the basis of which he was served with charge-sheet containing lengthy allegations.
' From the above it follows that previously too the appellant was charge-sheeted for the misconduct. In view of the above, the charge of misconduct and insubordination is proved beyond any shadow of doubt against the appellant.
4. Mr Muhammad Khan, learned counsel for the appellant tried to over turn the above on more or less the same ground as mentioned in the memorandum of appeal by the appellant and first submitted that the inquiry proceedings were not done in accordance with the relevant rules. He while developing his point argued that the Inquiry Officer was, no doubt, below the rank of the Principal, who was the complainant, therefore, according to him it can be argued that the Inquiry Officer was under the influence of the complainant (Principal, Police Training School, Hangu) and on this score alone his findings should be kept out of consideration. We are afraid, we cannot subscribe to this contention of the learned counsel for this appellant. For, the appellant has been dealt with under Police Rules and according to para 5 (4) of the Police Rules, 1975 the Inquiry Officer shall be senior in rank to the accused. In the case in hand, Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad A. S. P., Headquarters, who was appointed as an Inquiry Officer, was senior in rank than the accused appellant and thus under the relevant rules his report is quite good and not open to any criticism. It is no matter that the Inquiry Officer is below the rank of the complainant, for he had to hold inquiry against the accused appellant who is definitely below his rank. In this view of the matter, the first objection of the learned counsel for the appellant falls to the ground.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the N.-W. F. P. Police Rules, 1975 framed under section 7 of the Police Act,. 1861 are ultra vires and untenable in law, for, according to him section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 stands repealed by implication under section 16 of the N.-W. F. P.
Civil Servants Act, 1973. A perusal of section 16 of the D N. W. F. P. Civil Servants Act, 1973 would show that it did not repeal the Rules framed under section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 and thus the Rules framed in 1975 are neither ultra vires nor untenable in law.
6. It was also argued on behalf of the appellant that the appellant being a civil servant should have been proceeded against under the N.-W. F. P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules, 1973 and thus the inquiry conducted under the Police Rules, 1975 is no inquiry in the eye of law and the appellant is entitled to be exonerated on this score alone. We have considered this objection of the learned counsel for the appellant from every conceivable point but are unable to find any force in it. For, it escaped the notice of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Police Rules, 1974 is a special law while the N.-W. F. P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules, 1973, is a general law. The appellant was, no doubt, a Police personnel and in the presence of special law for Police personnel, it is useless to argue that why he has not been dealt with under the general law.
7. The result of the discussion gone before is that there is no force in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.