JUSTICE (RTD) MUNAWARALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).- The appellant, Syed Ghulam Rasool Shah has filed this appeal against the order of his reversion, from the rank of Head Constable to that of Constable, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Khairpur on 3.5.1988. Before filing the present appeal he challenged the impugned order in departmental appeal, preferred to the DIGP but the same was rejected vide his order dated 27.10.1988. The appellant then went in revision before the I.G.P but there too he did not succeed vide I.G.P.'s order dated 19.2.1989.
2. On the same day, the order of his reversion was passed, the appellant was also placed under suspension, for days later on 7.5.1988, he was served with charge-sheet accompanied by statement of allegations. It transpired from the said documents that the appellant had arrested one Haji Ghulam Muhammad Katoher who was however released by him after accepting illegal gratification of Rs.650/ = . This amount was shared by the appellant with the S.I P. Muhammad Moosa. After the appellant submitted his reply to the above charge, the charge-sheet was converted into show- cause notice and the appellant was awarded miner penalty of fine equivalent to his one-month's pay. The DIGP's separate order dated 14.11.1988 placed on record by the appellant disclosed that the S.I.P. Muhammad Moosa, who had allegedly shared the illegal gratification with the appellant had to undergo the" same ordeal. Like the appellant he too was reverted from the S.I.P's positibn to that of AS1, besides having been awarded minor punishment of fine equal to his one-month's pay. The said order howover shows that on recommendations of the two successive S.P.s the said Muhammad Moosa was restored to his original position of SIP.
We heard arguments of Mr.M.L.Shahani for the appellant and Mr.Salman Ansari, on behalf of the official respondents. We also went through all these documents relevant for disposal of this appeal.
3. It appears from the above narrative of facts that two adverse orders were passed against appellant: one of reversion and another of imposing mirror penalty upon him. This appeal is however directed only against the order of reversion.The appellant's main contention against the latter order, as stated in para 3 of his memo of appeal is: " That vide order dated 3.5.1988 without any show-cause notice the appellant was reverted to substantive post of Constable and without any charge-sheet or explanation obtained from the appellant. " In reply to the appellant's above objection the plea taken by official respondents is reflected in para 3 of their written statement and it reads as under: "That the contents of para No: 3 (of memo of appeal) are admitted to the extent that no show- cause (notice?) was issued to him for reversion to his substantive rank of Constable. It is stated that reversion is no punishment and thus issuance of show-cause notice is not necessery. The relience can be placed on Supreme Court's judgement reported in PLD 1959 page-107. The applicant was found unfit for the post of Head Constable, therefore he was reverted to the post f Constable in the Public interest".
4. From the above pleadings of the parties, the admitted position that emerged was that no show- cause notice was given to the appellant with regard to his reversion. Therefore the short point that now arises for our determination is whether the appellant was entitled to show-cause notice prior to his reversion from the post of Head Constable to that of Constable. In the case reported as Ali Muhammad Shahani-v-Inspector General of Police, Sindh (1987 PLC (C.S) 205), this Tribunal had taken the view that despite the exclusion of the Police personnel of the lower cadres from purview of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Dscipline) Rules 1973, they continued to be governed by the Sind Civil Servants Act 1973 and therefore as required by section l2 of the said Act a civil servant appointed, to higher post or grade adhoc or on temporary or officiating basis was liable to reversion to his lower post or grade without notice which was however mandatory case of reversion carrying stigma. In the subsequent case reported as Abdul Huq -V-Province of Sind (1989 PLC (CS) 300), the attention of this Tribunal was drawn to the Supreme Court's authority reported as Inspector General of Police punjab-V-Mushtaq Ahmad Warraich and other (PLD 1985 S.C. 159) wherein the Supreme Court was pleased to hold the view that the Police Force was governed by.The Police Act 1961 and Police Rules 1934, in respeett of all the matters covered by the said Act and said rules. Relying on that authority this Tribunal held:"After going through the above Supreme Court authority, we have no doubt in our mind that the Police force even in the Province of Sindh is geverned by the Police Act 1961 and Police Rules 1934 in respect of all the matters covered by the said Act and said Rules."
We see no reason to take a different view in this case. Accordingly the appellant is governed by the Police Act 1961 and Police Rules 1934 and not by Sind Civil Servants Act 1973 and rules framed thereunder. In view of this finding we have to see if the Police rules entitled the appellant to any show- cause notice before his reversion. In this connection we may refer to rule 13.18. Of Police Rules, which reads as under: "13.18. Probationary peried of promotion. All Police Officers promoted in rank shall be on probaion for two years, provided that the appointing authority may, by a special order in each case, permit periods of officiating service to count towards the period of probation. On the conclusion of the probationary period a report shall be rendered to the authority empowered to confirm the promotion who shall either confirm the officer or revert him.In no case shall be period of probation be extended beyond two years and the confirming authority must arrive at a definite decision within that period whether the officer should be confirmed or reverted. While on probation officers may be reverted without departmental proceedings .Such reversion shall not be considered reduction for the purpose of rule 16.4."
This rule shall not apply to constables and Sublnspcctors promoted to the selection grade, whose case is governed by rules 13.5 and 13.14".
5. The above rule clearly shows that a Police Officer who is on probation following his promotion may and can be reverted without departmental proceedings. That is to say that show-cause notice need not be given for reversion of promotee police officer during the peried of his probation.
It is not the case of the department that the appellant's reversion was ordered while he was still on probation. All that has been stated in the written statement filed on behalf of the official respondents is that "reversion is no punishment and thus issuance of show-cause notice is not necessary". We regret our inability to usbscribe to the above view. As stated above if reversion is not made during the period of probation, it amounts to reduction in rank which according to rule 16.12 of Police Rules is a major penalty. Before inflicting such penalty the procedure laid down in rule 16.24 of the Police Reules has to be followed.It is true that in para 3 of the written statement filed by the learned AAG, it is stated that the appellant's revesion was made to his "substantive rank" of constable, indicating as if the appellant was working as Head Constable only in officiating capcity.
This docs not necessarily mean that he was on probation at the time of his reversion, officiating capacity can continue even after expiry of the probationary period until it is terminated on confirmation of the official . There is no provision in the Police Rules permitting reversion without show cause notice even from officiating position.Howcver in this connection the learned AAG has relied upon the Supreme Court authority reported as Pakistan-V-Hikmat Hussain (PLD 1959 Supreme Court (Pak) 107). In the reported case, the respondent was appointed as officiating Post- Master General by the acting Prime Minister but later he was reverted to the post of Assistant Director General. He challenged this reversion in High Court which decided in his favour.In appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held: " When an officer is expressly appointed in an officiating capcity and until further orders Govt, can at any time terminate his officating appointment, and revert him to his original position, even if such reversion may amount to review of earlior order."
On the. Basis of above authority even if it is held that reversion can be made from officiating position without show-cause notice, such reversion shall be reversion simpliciter. The appellant's reversion was however not simplictor. It was rather accompanied by the sting described in these words:"....... As he is found unfit to hold the rack of Head Constable. These words can be interpreted as a reflection either on appellant's efficiency or on his conduct or both.
It is an admitted position that on the day of appellant's reversion, he was also placed under suspension which was again followed by disciplinary proceedings against him, ultimately leading to his punishment in the shape of fine equal to his one month's emoluments . In these circumstances it will not be possible to delink the appellant's reversion from his suspension and consequent disciplinary action, holding that it was altogether independent action divored from the departmental proceedings. As such the appellant's reversion was in the nature of his condemnation. Since he could not be condemned unlcard, the appellant was entitled to show- cause notice before his reversion was ordered. This view is supported by the Supreme Court authority reported as Muhammad Abrahim -V-Government of Pakistan (PLD 1972 SC 392) wherein it was held: "Government has the legal authority to terminate an officiating appointment at any time and it may do so for any reason relatable to exigencies of service. No show-cause notice is necessary in such a case. But if it is intended to revert an officer to an inferior post by way of penally, a show cause notice is necessary notwithstanding that the appointment is the superior post was in an officiating capacity."7. In view of the above authority the appellant was entitled to show- cause notice before his reversion, as his reversion was obviously in consequence of the grounds for which he was not only placed under suspension but was also ultimately punished by imposing a minor penally of fine equivalent to one month's pay on him. There would have been no objection to the appellant's reversion if it had followed rather than preceded the departmental proceedings taken against him. Furthermore since the appellant was duly punished for the charge of illegal gratification, his furhter punishment by way of reversion was uncalled for. There S.I.P, who had allegedly shared the illegal gratification with the appellant and was punished on that charge like the appellant was some how restored to his original position. It was absolutely unjustified that in the precisely similar circumastances, the appellant's case was treated differently and his reversion was allowed to continue.
8. For the above reasons we arc of the view that the impugned order of the appellant's reversion is unsustainable and therefore the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs and the impugned order is set aside.
Given under our hands and the seal of this Tribunal on this 30th day of October, 1989 at Sukur.