1. ' OHULAM RASOOL SHAIKH (CHAIRMAN)-This iS an appeal under section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
2. ' The appellant was recruited as Police Constable in 1961. On account of his efficient service he earned several awards and was given accelerated promotion as Head Constable on 24th October, 1973.
3. ' On 30th October, 1977 while he was posted at Baghdadi Police Station he applied for ten days casual leave to the Deputy Superintendent of Police which was granted. After some time on the same day it came to the notice of the Deputy Superintendent of Police that the appellant was required by the Martial Law Authorities and, therefore, he cancelled leave but the appellant at that time had already left. Consequently he was treated as absconder and on 26th December, 1977 be was challenged under section 29 of the Police Act but he was acquitted on 24th June, 1978, as it was held that although the appellant committed some irregularities but he was not at fault, as he had not been informed in time that the order of granting leave was recalled.
4. ' During the pendency of the aforesaid prosecution the appellant was suspended on 14th January, 1978 with retrospective effect, i. e. 30th October, 1977 when his leave was cancelled. Subsequently on 28th May, 1978 when the appellant was still officiating as Head Constable he was reverted as Police Constable which was his substantive post.
5. ' The appellant made a representation to the Superintendent of Police for re-instatement. The application which was addressed to the Superintendent of Police does not bear any date. On his representation he was re-instated by order dated 7th February, 1978 and was required to join duty in Baghdadi Lines. The copy of order was sent to the Superintendent of Police Headquarters for information to the appellant and compliance but it seems that letter was never received at Police Headquarters. Consequently the appellant was not relieved and he continued to remain on the suspension list maintained at the headquarters. Since the appellant had not resumed his duty, another letter dated 18th May, 1979 was sent to the Superintendent of Police Headquarter inviting his attention to the previous letter. This letter was never replied and, therefore, a reminder dated 21st May, 1978 was sent. In pursuance of this letter the appellant was relieved and he resumed his duties in Baghdadi Lines on 1st June, 1978. However, the Superintendent of Police City Division sent another letter dated 10th June, 1976 to the Superintendent of Police Headquarters for seeking information as to why the appellant had not resumed earlier. This was replied and it was stated that the letter of re-instatement and posting at Baghdadi Police Station was never received.
6. ' On 19th July, 1978 the Superintendent of Police City issued a show-cause notice under rule 5 (3) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 for his failure to comply with the orders dated 7th February, 1978 and deliberately overstaying at the Police Headquarters till 1st June, 1978.
7. The appellant instead of replying to the show-cause notice sent an application, dated 25th July, 1,978 to the Deputy Inspector-General through the Superintendent of Police wherein he complained against the harassm ent by the Superintendent of Police and requested that another Officer be appointed to hold the enquiry, as the Superintendent of Police was prejudiced against him. It seems that this application was not forwarded to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police as alleged by the appellant. Again the appellant made another application dated 24th September, 1978 to the Superintendent of Police that he was never absent but he was serving at the Police Headquarter and he had already submitted an application and further he did not want to submit the reply to the show-cause notice. Thereafter the Superintendent of Police passed a final order dated 7th January, 1979 reducing his pay from Rs, 278 to Rs, 272 as explanation was not found satisfactory.
8. ' Aggrieved by this he filed an 'appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police which was dismissed by order dated 9th May, 1979. Thereafter the present appeal was filed.
9. ' At the outset it may be pointed out that written arguments had been filed on some earlier date and these arguments were kept on record. However, the case did not proceed and was adjourned from time to time. Finally it-was fixed on 26th April, 1980 when the appellant was present in person and an application was presented on behalf of his counsel that he was busy in the High Court and, therefore, the written arguments may be considered for the disposal of the appeal. In view of this application we not only perused the written arguments but also personally heard the appellant as well as the assistant Advocate-General. Dealing with the merits of the case, it is clear from the statement of facts that two actions had been taken against the appellant. The first action was the reversion from the officiating post of Head Constable to substantive post of Police Constable. The second action was reduction in the pay. The appellant has challenged both these actions taken by the Superintendent of Police.
10. ' Considering the first action relating to reversion, it is not maintainable for the simple reason that the reversion of the appellant had taken place by order dated 28th May, 1978 and against this order a departmental appeal was filed. It was for the 'first time that an application dated 23rd July, 1978 was addressed to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police through the Superintendent of Police. This was made as a result of the show-cause notice which was subsequently issued in respect of noncompliance with the order dated 7th February, 1978. Consequently it cannot be treated as an appeal against the order of reversion. Even if it is treated to be an appeal it was made nearly 2 months after the order of reversion, so it was clearly time-barred as the appeal is required to be filed within one month. However, in the application the appellant stated in the very first para that against the reversion he had already appealed to the Inspector-General of Police Sind but it may be pointed that in the first place no evidence has been furnished that any appeal had been filed to the Inspector-General of Police nor any copy of such appeal has been filed.
11. Secondly, even otherwise, the appeal was required to be filed to the Deputy Inspector-General against the order of the Superintendent of Police and not to the Inspector-General of Police, as the appeal was not filed in the proper forum and was not maintainable. Consequently the order of reversion cannot be assailed at this stage.
12. ' As regards the second motion relating to the reduction in pay it is of course an admitted position that the letter sent by Superintendent of Police, Karachi City was not received at the headquarter but it is clear from the circumstances that the appellant was fully aware of the fact that his order of reinstatement and posting in Baghdadi Lines was passed, so he deliberately avoided to join at the place of his new posting and remained at Headquarter with no work to do. According to the rules a person under suspension is entitled to half of the pay and the appellant was actually drawing that much from the day of his suggestion till the order of his re-instatement was passed; but thereafter he was receiving full pay which was admissible to him on re-instatement. It is therefore, understandable that he was aware of the reinstatement and his posting in Baghdadi Linea. The appellant who was present has admitted before us that he had actually drawn full pay from the day the alleged order was said to have been passed. In this situation we fully agree with the view taken by the Superintendent of Police that the appellant had deliberately avoided to resume at the place of his posting on re-instatement. Not only this but the conduct of the appellant is hardly commendable. In the first place he made accusation against the Superintendent of Police and secondly, he refused to submit his explanation as has already been pointed out while narrating the facts. Consequently no exception can be taken.
13. ' In result the appeal is dismissed.