1. ' MUHAMMAD ISHAQ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Kachkol Khan, appellant, was removed from service from 19th December, 1978 under section 5 of the. Police Rules (North-West Frontier Province Punishment Rules), 1975 vide order of the Superintendent of Police, Mardan. The allegations against him were that the appellant visited Punjab in connection with F. I. R, No, 126 dated 24th April, 1978 of Police Station Kalu Khan and recovered one Mst. Sakina from the house of one Bahadur Khan and brought her to Mardan and registered a case under sections 363, 364, P. P. C. But failed to arrest any one of the accused with ulterior motive. Similarly, he raided the house of one Abdul Malik, Pimp and recovered a minor girl namely Purveen of 'Kund' and kept the girl with him in Hotel and after taking Rs, 6,000 from Abdul Malik through one Mst. Shamim, he handed over Mst.
2. Purveen back to Abdul Malik. It is further alleged that he also recovered other girls, namely Mst. Fameeda and Dilshad from the brothel houses but gave them back to the pimps after receiving handsome money. On these allegations, the appellant was dealt with departmentally and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to probe into the guilt of the appellant. On receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer, Superintendent of Police, Mardan passed an order removing the appellant from service from 19th -December, 1978. Not content with this order the appellant went in appeal to Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Peshawar Range, Peshawar but his appeal was also rejected vide order dated 17th June 1969. Thereafter, he went to Inspector-General of Police, Peshawar in mercy petition but the same was also rejected, vide order dated 18th August, 1979. The appellant has now come to this Tribunal for redress of his grievances by way of the present appeal.
3. ' We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties nave also perused the record. A preliminary objection regarding the limitation was raised from the side of respondent. The appellant has also made an application for the condonation of delay alongwith the appeal, alleging that the Tribunal had ceased to exist on the departure of its Chairman on 7th July, 1979 and has been reconstituted on the appointment of new Chairman dated 19th September, 1979 and filed the appeal on the same date. On the face of it this ground taken in application for the condonation of delay by the appellant is frivolous and baseless. For, if the Chairman was elevated to the Bench, the office was there and the appellant could file an appeal with the Registrar of the Tribunal and his failure to do so exposes him to legal action. Apart from this, the appellant was removed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Mardan vide order dated 19th December, 1978 and he went in appeal to the Deputy Inspector of Police, which was rejected on 17th June, 1979. It is from this date that he should have come to the Tribunal within thirty days but be had chosen a wrong forum by filing a mercy petition before the Inspector-General of Police, Peshawar.
4. ' Rule 11 of the Police Rules, 1975 reads as follows :- "(a) An appeal shall lie only against the orders of dismissal, removal from service, compulsory retirement, reduction in rank or time scale, forfeiture of approved service and imposition of fine;
(b) there shall be one appeal only from the original order, and the order of the appellate authority shall be final;
(c) the appeal shall lie to the officer one step higher than the one who passes the original order provided that in case of orders passed by Inspector-General of Police, only a review petition would be admissible.
5. From the above it follows that there is no provision for mercy petition, for there is only appeal from the original order and the order of the appellate authority shall be final. If the appellant has spent more than thirty days in filing the mercy petition the same cannot be condoned.
6. ' The net result of the above discussion is that the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.