CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- Brief facts out of which the present Writ Petition arises are that the petitioner is Railway Supervisor. On 20.8.1996 on the complaint of one Muhammad Altaf respondent No. 2 Amir Hussain recorded FIR No. 68 96 against the petitioner u/S. 161 PPC read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947. On the same day another FIR was recorded under the same offence by respondent No. 2 on the complaint of one Muhammad Saleem and Ghulam Sarwar. The matter was investigated by D.S.P. Railways who vide his report dated 10.10.1996 found that the petitioner was innocent and both the FIRs were recorded mala fide which was confirmed subsequently by the S.P. Railways on 14.10.1996. The matter was placed before the Special Judge Central, Multan who cancelled the FIR No.68 96. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 point out that other FIR was not cancelled but he admitted this fact that the petitioner was discharged in the FIR No. 7196. The competent Authority issued a show-cause notice to respondent No. 2 under the Pakistan Railways (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1996 on the ground that respondent No. 2 registered a false case against the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 submitted reply to the show- cause notice. The competent authority dismissed respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 24.12.1996.
Respondent No. 2 filed appeal before respondent No. 3. Who dismissed the same vide his order dated 21.3.1997. The respondent No. 2 being aggrieved by the order dated 24.12.1996 and 21.3.1997 filed a review petition before respondent No. 1 which was accepted vide order dated 8.5.1997 in the following terms:- "Taking a lenient view convert the punishment of dismissal fr6m service into stoppage of increment for a period of two years without comulative effect, and respondent No. 2 was reinstated''.
The present petitioner filed a Writ of quo warranto on the ground that respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction under the Pakistan Railways (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules to pass any order in review application filed by respondent No. 2.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that order passed by Appellate Authority became final by virtue of Rule 14(2) of the said Rules. He further urged that original order was passed by S.P., therefore, I.G. Police by virtue of Rule 14(3) proviso was not competent to hear the review petition. He further urged that no revision was filed before the Inspector General under rule 12 by respondent No. 2. Therefore, the order passed by respondent No. 1 could not be termed as passed ar.
12. He further urged that respondent No. 1 has treated the application himself as review application and order of respondent No. 1 also revealed that he considered the same as review petition and relied upon the first sentence of the order that he disposed of the review application.
He further urged that revisional power is only available when no appellate order has been passed by the Departmental Authorities. He funther argued that no revision is available against the final order passed by the Appellate Authority. The learned counsel ultimately urged that in case respondent No. 1 has a jurisdiction then the matter may be remanded to him to decide the same afresh keeping in view the circumstances of the case and decide the same after applying his mind.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1. 3 and 4 contended that writ petition is not maintainable at this Bench as both the FIRs were recorded at Samma Sana which area was assigned to Bahawalpur Bench. He funther argued that matter relates to the terms and conditions, therefore, by virtue of Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan read with section 4 of the Serv ice Tribunal Act the petitioner has an alternate remedy to agitate the matter before the Service Tribunal. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 contravened the contention of learned counsel for respondents No.. 1. 3 and 4. He further agitated that writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is not an aggrieved person, he further argued that by virtue of Punjab Police Rules, the Inspector General Police has a power to review the order of the Deputy Inspector General. He further argued that respondent No. I has jurisdiction under Rule 12 to modify the order passed by any subordinate at any stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal contended that the order was not passed by respondent No. 1 suo mto. Therefore, the order passed by respondent No. 1 was not valid. He further argued that contents pf the order is to be seen which clearly revealed that he disposed of the review petition and did not decide the revision u/r. 12.
I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel for the parties. It is proper and appropriate to reproduce the relevant Rules which are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- "12. Revision.
(1) The Inspector General & Deputy Inspector General or Superintendent of Police may call for the record of punishment awarded by their subordinates and confirm enhance, modify or annul the same, or make further investigation or direct such to be made before passing orders.
(2) If punishment of dismissal is annulled, the officer annulling it shall state whether it is to be regarded as suspension followed by reinstatement, or not. The order should also state whether service prior to dismissal shall count for pension or not.
(3) In all cases in which officers propose to enhance any punishment they shall, before passing final orders, give the accused concerned an opportunity of showing cause, either personally or in writing, why his punishment should not be enhanced.
14. Appeal.
(1) An appeal shall lie only against the order of dismissal, removal from service, compulsory- retirement, reduction in rank or time scales, forfeiture of approved service and imposition of fine:
(2) There shall be one appeal only from the original older, and the order of the Appellate Authority shall be final:
(3) The appeal shall lie to an officer one step higher in rank as shown in the schedule, than the one who passes the original order: Provided that in case of orders passed by the Inspector General of Police, only a review petition shall be admissible.
I intend to decide the preliminary objection raised by the respondent's counsel. The learned counsel for the respondents raised the objection that the writ petition is not maintainable at Multan Bench as both the Frl. Rs. Were recorded at Police Station Samma Satha which area is assigned to the Bahawalpur Bench. The present writ petition is filed as respondent No. 2 was dismissed after providing show-cause notice to him by Superintendent of Railway Police Multan, therefore, the objection of the respondents has no force as the cause of action accrued in the area assigned to this Bench. The other preliminary objection that the matter relates to the terms and conditions, therefore, by virtue of Article 212(2) read with Section 4 of the Sen ice Tribunals Act writ petition is not maintainable has no force as the petitioner filed a writ petition of quo-warranto with the following prayer:- "Under the circumstances it is respectfully prayed that the order passed by the respondent No. 1.
Dated 8.5.1997 be declared illegal and void and without lawful authority and thus of no legal consequence and further appropriate writ be issued directing the respondent No. 2 to show under what authority of law he holds the office as Assistant Sub- Inspector Railway Police".
I am fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as P.L.D. 1970 S.C.
98. On merits it is no doubt that the order dated 3.5.1997 of respondent No. 1 reveals that this review petition submitted by Ex-ASI Amir Hussain Shah Multan Division against the punishment of dismissal from sen ice awarded to him by S.R.P. Vide order dated 24.12.1996. By virtue of Rule 14(3)
Proviso review is only available in case the order was passed by Inspector General of Police himself but in the present case it is admitted fact that original order which was upheld by the appellate authority was not passed by respondent No. 1 Inspector General of Police, therefore, review under Rule 14i3t of Pakistan Railways Police (Efficiency and Discipline! Rules. 1996 was not maintainable.
Similarly the contention of the learned counsel of the respondents has no force that respondent No. 1 Inspector General of Railway Police has also power under Police Act. 1861 and Rules framed thereunder on the well-known principle of law that special excludes the General. I am fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan PLD 1985 SC 159 Mushtaq Warraich 's case and PLD 1973 SC 49 Ziaur-Rehman's case. The present controversy between the parties has to be decided on\ under the provision of Pakistan Railways Police Act. 1977 and Rules framed thereunder. under Rule l2 of Pakistan Railways Rules, respondent No. 1. Inspector General of Pakistan Railways Police has jurisdiction to call for the record of punishment awarded by his subordinate and pass any order to the following effect:-
(i) Confirm.
(ii) Enhanced.
(iii) Modified or
(iv) Annulled the same, or
(v) Make further investigations, or
(vi) Direct such to be made before passing order.
It is pertinent to mention here that Rule l2 does not prescribe the following limitations:
(i) Time Limit.
Iii) Suo motu.
(iii) On the application of the aggrieved party.
(iv) At what stage i.e. Before the appellate order.
In view of these circumstances the Inspector General of Police Railways has ample powers to invoke this rule at any stage, suo mom or on the application of an aggrieved person. Similar to Rule l2 of Pakistan Railways Police. WAPDA has also framed Rule l2 under the Provisions of WAPDA Act.
1958 which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: Rule 12. Water and Power Efficiency and Discipline Rules. 1978:- Rule l2 is in the following terms:- "12. Revision.-The Authority may. Either on receipt of a specific reference or of its ow n motion, at any time, call for any case in which proceedings may have been instituted under these rules, and pass such orders t including, orders reversing acquittal or enhancing the penalty imposed) as it may deem fit. And orders so passed shall be final.
Note.-In case where the Authority decides to enhance the penalty imposed by the competent Authority, a show-cause notice will be issued and the accused will be given an opportunity of being heard in person".
Rule 12 of the WAPDA was interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Maqsood's case (PLD 1992 SC 242) in which action of the authority of WAPDA was declared valid. Respondent No. 1 Inspector General Pakistan Railways Police has no power to review the order under order 14(3)
Proviso as mentioned above but the Inspector General of Police has a power to review the order of any of his subordinates under rule l2 on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Yousaf's case (1992 Pakistan Supreme Court Cases 1064) in which action of s Authority was also declared valid.
It is pertinent to mentioned here that the word "modify" is purposely used by the competent Authority to extend the scope of Rule 12 and this word is discussed in Bashir Ahmad's case (1984 CLC 2158) and the relevant observations is as follows:- "The word modify means to alter: a change: an alternation or amendment which introduces new elements into the details or cancels some of them, but leaves the general purpose and effect of the subject- matter intact. Alteration in the said Dictionary: means variation: changing: making different. A change of a thing form one from or state to another; making a thing different from what it was without destroying its identity.
11. In the 20th Century Practical Dictionary the word 'modify' means change (to make suitable or less severe).
12. It shows that the word modify connotes that the order can be later, changed or varied or it can be suitable or less severe. In this manner, the Superintending Canal Officer is competent to vary or alter an order by modify ing the same".
4. In view of what has been discussed above the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner have no force. Neither the petitioner nor respondents brought on record the application, submitted by the respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1. Who accepted the same. Although respondent No. 1 has power to exercise revisional power to modify punishment awarded to respondent No. 2 by his subordinate S.P. And confirmed by the Appellate Authority by dismissing appeal of respondent No. 2 but his action must be based on reasons and he is not permitted to exercise the power arbitrary . I am fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan 1993 SC.MR 1134 WAPDA v. Muhammad Riaz Butt. Let a copy of the writ petition be sent to respondent No. 1 who shall look into the matter personally and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law without influencing the above-mentioned observations.
5. With these observations this petition is disposed of.