MUHAMMAD IQBAL KAZI (MEMBER)---This is an appeal filed by the appellant above named under section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 praying therein that the impugned order, dated 29th September, 1996 passed by respondent No,2 be set aside. The aforesaid impugned order pertains to discharge of the appellant from service. It has also been prayed that the subsequent order, dated the 12th March, 1997 passed by the respondent No,3 rejecting thereby the departmental appeal filed by the appellant may also be set aside and appellant be reinstated in service.
2. Facts of the case are briefly that the appellant was appointed as Assistant Sub-Inpector of Police on 26-12-1995 and. Was subsequently, sent for training during the mandatory probationary period.
However, during the course of training, the appellant chose to remain absent w.e.f 11-9-1996 for a total period of 118 days without intimation to respondent No,1 who recommended action under rule 12.8 of the Sindh Police (E&D) Rules, 1988 alongwith some other officials to respondent No,2.
3. The aforesaid action contemplated by respondent No,1 was subsequently followed by an suo motu action relegated the appellant to a junior batch with effect from 25-9-1996. Such order was passed by respondent No,1 on 26-9-1996 without awaiting the result or response of his earlier report made to respondent No,2. However, the respondent No,2 passed the discharge orders in respect of the appellant above named on 29-9-1996 under intimation to all concerned including the respondent No,1. Later on, the respondent No,1 attempted to come out with a rectified position pertaining to the erroneous inclusion of appellant's name but the respondent No,2 did not accept such flimisy state of affairs and held orders of discharge under rule 12.8 of the Police Rules, as good.
4. The appellant, thereafter, filed departmental appeal before the respondent No,3 on 3-11-1996 but the same was rejected on 12-3-1997. However, the appellant has chosen to challenge the impugned order passed by respondent No,2 on 29-9-1996.
5. Heard arguments at length made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.A.- G. The points for determination are as under:--
(i) Whether the appellant was rightly discharged under rule 12.8 of the Police Rules, 1934?
(ii) Whether the appellant had undergone two punishments, viz. Relegation and discharge from service during the process?
6. On perusal of record, proceedings and hearing arguments at length, it has transpired that the replies to the above points for determination are as under:--
(i) Affirmative.
(ii) Negative.
' REASONS:
(i) The rule 12.8 of the Police Rules, 1934 is very clear on the subject. The relevant portion may be reproduced as under:- "12.8. Inspectors, Sergeants, Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors who are directly appointed will be considered to be on probation for three years and are liable to 'be discharged to any time within the period of their probation if they fail to pass the prescribed examinations, including the riding test, or are guilty of grave misconduct or are deemed for sufficient reasons, to be unsuitable for service in the Police.
' Noappeal lies against an order of discharge."
' Thus, in view of the foregoing, the appellant has hardly any case for reinstatement. Admittedly, the appellant chose to remain absent during the training period for a substantial period of 118 days which act does not justify his continuance in the police department. He cannot be, by any standards, considered as part of disciplined force, hence, action taken against Aim by the respondent No,2 is fully in accordance with the rules.
(ii)' The learned counsel argued that appellant was punished twice, i,e, relegation and discharge from service. We are not inclined to accept this argument. It seems that the respondent No,1 has acted beyond his authority to relegate the appellant after having reported against him to the respondent No,2. In fact, he should have awaited the response of the competent Authority, i,e, respondent No,2 but for reasons not known, the respondent No,1 rushed to relegate the appellant immediately after reporting against him. Thus, the suo motu act of relegation by the respondent No,1 is ambiguous, void and bad in law for which the respondent No,3 should have taken serious cognizance instead of sufficing to issue memorandum of reprimand.
' The learned counsel for appellant has produced certain reinstatement orders of the Assistant Sub-Inspectors passed by the respondent No,3. However, these orders appears to have been scrutinized by a Scrutiny Committee. Besides, such orders cited might have different merits as reasonable application of mind 'seems to have been resorted in such cases and Most of the orders are speaking. The case of the appellant would hardly get any blanket cover of the aforesaid instance purporting to reinstatement of these officials.
7. In view of the aforesaid findings, we are of the firm view that the action taken by respondent No,2 against the appellant above named meets all the requisite principles of law coupled with rule 12.8 of the Police D. Rules, 1934. Thus, this appeal lacks any force of law, rationale and principles of administrative justice. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order to costs.
' Announced in open Court.
' Given under our hands and Seal of this Tribunal an this 4th day of October, 2001 at Karachi.