MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER). -Masood Ahmad, ex-Constable No. 1956 of District Rawalpindi has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 against the order of his discharge from service and the appellate order of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Rawalpindi Range. Rawalpindi. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order of discharge from service with effect from 10-6-1978 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi be set aside and the appellant be re-instated into service with all back benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was enrolled as a Police Constable on I9-10-1976 and was deputed for training in the Recruits Training College at Qaddafi Stadium, Lahore. While he was undergoing training at Lahore, he was deputed for duty in Gujranwala district where he was involved in case F. I. R No--284, dated 30-4-1978 under section 380, P. P. C. Registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Gujranwala and was challaned to Court of Law. On report from Police recruits Train--ing School, Qaddafi Stadium, Lahore, the appellant was discharged from service by the Senior Superintendent of Police Rawalpindi with effect from 10-6-1978 vide his order No. 355, dated 11-6-1978. He filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Rawalpindi Range, Rawal--pindi which was also rejected vide his Order No. 2626-27/G, dated 10-2-1982. He submitted a revision petition to the Inspector-General of Police, Punabj, Lahore which was also rejected vide letter dated 30-5-1982. Hence this appeal.
3. We have beard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has been discharged from service under Police Rule 12.21 which is not attracted to the present case because the appellant had allegedly committed an act of misconduct and he could only have been removed from service by adopting the procedure laid down in the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. It has also been argued that in the theft case, the appellant faced his trial in the Court of Mehar Akbar Ali, Magistrate Section 30, Gujranwala and was honourably acquitted vide judgment dated 19-10-1981. He has further argued that after securing his acquittal from the Court, the appel--lant has been trying for his re-instatement into service but ultimately had to file the appeal before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Rawalpindi. As such the appeal before the D. I.-G., Rawalpindi was within limitation. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that the appellant was discharged from service -in 1978 and he submitted an appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Rawalpindi which has lawfully been dismissed as being barred by time. He has also submitted that the appellant has been discharged from service strictly in accordance with the rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules which is in conformity with section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act. It has further been argued that the appel--lant has been discharged from service on account of his bad record of service and when it was felt by the competent authority that he would. Not be proved as an efficient police officer if allowed to continue in service. It has further been argued that this tribunal has no jurisdiction under section 4
(b) of Punjab Service Tribunals Act because the Superintendent of Police has only determined the fitness of the appellant to continue in service.
4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of the case. According to the rules, the appellant was served with a notice on 30-4-1978 by Senior Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi to show cause as to why he should not be discharged from service under Police Rule 12.21 on the ground that during his service of less than three years he had been punished on several times due to mis--conduct and was also involved in a case under section' 380, P. P. C. P. S. City Kotwali Gujranwala which showed that if allowed to continue in service, the appellant would not become a good police officer. The appel--lant had submitted his reply but the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi discharged him from service on I1-6-1978. The service record of the appellant shows that he was enrolled as a Police Constable on 19-10-1976. He was awarded a fine of Rs. 50 in connection with the absence from 13-12-1977 to 18-12-1977 vide S. S. P. Order dated 16-2-1978. He was also awarded a fine of Rs. 70 vide order of S. P. Dated 19-2-1978 for his absence from duty. Similarly vide order dated 21-3-1978, he was awarded a fine of Rs. 50 on the similar charge. He was also punished on two more occasions by the S. S. P. For wilful absence from duty. Even in 1977 he was found absent from duty. The period of his absence was treated on leave without pay. Thus we hold that the service record of the appel--lant was checkered during the period of his probation. The appellant was admittedly involved in a theft case at Gujranwala but although he was acquitted under section 249-A, Cr. P. C. Due to the failure of the prosecu--tion to produce witnesses, yet this acquittal is not honourable and on merits. The service of the civil servants can be terminated without any notice during the initial or the extended period of probation under section -10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act. Similarly provision is also available in- rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, which lays down that if it is found that a police official cannot be proved efficient, he can be discharged by the Superintendent of Police at any time within three years of enrolment -and no appeal lies against the order of discharge passed under this rule. Since the record of the appellant is checkered and his performance during the period of probation was never considered to be satisfactory, so we hold that the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with the law and rules on the subject. Since we have held that the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with the law, we did not feel any necessity in dealing with the other objections raised on behalf of the respon--dents.
5. In view of the above analysis we hold that there are no merits in this appeal which is dismissed as such. There will be no order as to costs.