Mr. Noor Ahmed, Constable, Police Department, has made this appeal before the Service Tribunal Punjab, Lahore, wherein he has impleaded the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, and the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. The appellant has prayed that the impugned orders dated 12-8-1981 of Deputy Inspector- General of Police, Punjab Lahore, and order dated 23-1-1982 of the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab Lahore, be set aside. The appellant has further prayed that he be ordered to be promoted to the rank of Head Constable, maintaining his seniority and awarded other emoluments.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, Mr. Noor Ahmad Constable No. 3571, the appellant, was recruited in the Police Department, Punjab, in the year 1964 as Constable and was promoted as officiating Head Constable during the year 1972. He continued as such till the year 1981, while serving as officiating Head Constable, the appellant was given ma for and minor punishments. Due to major punishment the appellant was removed from list `C-1' on 6-8-1981 and was also reverted from the officiating rank of Head Constable to the rank of Constable vide Deputy Inspector-General of Police order, dated 12-8-1981. The appellant made an appeal to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, which was disposed of vide his order, dated 23-1-1982. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that according to the Punjab Police Rules the appellant could only be removed from List ---C-1--- if the appellant was given major punishment but in the appellant's case, he was not given any of the major punishments. The major and minor punishments have been defined in rule 4 of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. According to this classification, the appellant was only awarded minor punishments and none of .The major punishment. Thus, removal of the appellant from List `C-1' was unlawful and not in accordance with the rule. Similarly, his reversion was illegal as the appellant was reverted on the grounds that he was awarded major punishments.
Furthermore accord--ing to the schedule appended with the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, it was the Superintendent of Police who was the competent authority in the case of appellant to remove him from List `C-1' and also to revert him and not the Deputy Inspector-General of Police. , Thus the impugned orders of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police are without jurisdiction, illegal, vide ab initio and be set aside on these grounds.
5. Controverting these arguments the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a reference be made to the parawise comments offered by respondents on the appeal of the appellant wherein the punish--ments shown and given to the appellant fall under the category of major punishment and thus there is no truth in the arguments of the appellant that the appellant was not awarded major punishment. Thus, the impugned orders of Deputy Inspector-General of Police for removal from List `C-1' and also his reversion from officiating rank are lawful and in order.
He further argued that reversion from officiating rank to that of a substantive rank is not a punishment and it can be ordered by the competent authority whenever it is found that the work and conduct of an official was not up to the mark. This issue has already been thrashed in so many cases and the matter is well-settled as far as reversion from an officiating rank to that of a, substantive rank is concerned, this view-point was however rebutted by the appellant's counsel by submitting that the appellant was promoted though officiating in 1972 and he continued as such up to 1981 and he could not be said to have been officiating till that date. The appellant automatically stood converted as reg employee in due course of time. The appellant could not be considered as officiating in the sense as has been taken by the respondents. As far as competency of Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Deputy Inspector-General of Police is also the competent authority in the case of the appellant and it has already been settled and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and reference be made to Supreme Court of Pakistan 1982, in case of Ghulam Jafar and 48 others v. Senior Superintendent of Police, Multan and another (1982 SCMR 630) that the Deputy Inspector-General of Police was also competent authority in the case of the appellant.
6. I have gone through the arguments of the parties and have also perused the references so quoted by the learned counsel of the appellant and of the respondents. Perusal of the service record of the appellant shows that his service record is checkered. Perusal of the parawise comments submitted by the respondents under para. 6 mentions "pay reduced equal to two increments in 1979 for failure to pay the share of his companion". This has also been verified from the service record of the appellant that he was given major punishment as such by S.P. Cantt, Lahore, vide his office order dated 23-5-1979. Perusal of rule 4 of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, to which a reference has been made by the appellant's counsel, clearly mentions that this punishment falls under the category of major punishment. Thus it is clear that the appellant was awarded major punishment and thus the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that no major punishment was awarded to the appellant is not correct and thus, this fact has made the matter clear that removal of the appellant from List `C-1' was in order and lawful.
As the work and conduct of the appellant was not found up to the mark during the course of time, I hold that reversion of the appellant from Head Constable to Constable was also in order, as according to rule 4(2)(b) of the Pun4ab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, reversion from officiating the substantive rank is no punishment. As far as objection of the learned counsel for the appellant that Deputy Inspector General of Police was not competent to remove the appellant from List 'C-1' and also to revert him from officiating rank is concerned, the decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Ghulam Jafar and 48 others v. Senior Superintendent of Police, Multan and another, is quite clear and it has been held that the Deputy Inspector-General of Police is the competent authority in the case of the appellant ; which is quite clear from para. 4 (page 632) of the said judgment, which is reproduced below :-- "4. Jurisdiction in administrative matters cannot be construed in a strict or technical sense, particularly in the Police organization where supervision is prescribed at every level over the acts of the subordinates. It is, therefore, difficult to accept that the Superin--tendent of Police in the discharge of his duties on the general administrative side is totally independent of the supervision of his superior. In fact the Organization is not constituted into water--tight hierarchical levels, such that one level cannot interfere with the level below it. This is clear from section 2 of the Police Act which lays down that "The entire Police establishment under a Provincial Government shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be one Police force---------". To the same purpose is the provision of section 4 of the Act which says :- ',The administration of the Police throughout a general Police District shall be vested in an Officer to be styled the Inspector. General of Police and in such Additional Inspector-General, Deputy Inspector-General and Assistant Inspector- General as the Provincial Government shall deem fit."
7. Keeping the above analysis in view, I hold that there is no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed as such.
There will be no orders as to costs.