Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD PARVEZ VS Respondent: SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
1999 P L C (C
1999 P L C (C.S.) 970
[Lahore High Court]
Before Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry, J
MUHAMMAD PARVEZ
Versus
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE and others
Writ Petition No. 19331 of 1998, decided on 4th March, 1999.
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Demotion‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Civil servant who was demoted by order of Competent Authority, had challenged his demotion in appeal before Deputy Inspector‑General of Police through Senior Superintendent of Police‑‑‑Senior Superintendent of Police through whom appeal was filed by civil servant, illegally and mala fide blocked appeal of civil servant and did not forward same to Deputy Inspector‑General of Police who was Appellate Authority and consigned appeal to record illegally‑‑‑Civil servant in his Constitutional petition had challenged order of Senior Superintendent of Police‑‑‑Constitutional petition filed by civil servant was resisted on ground that same was not competent because civil servant who had a right of appeal and; thereafter, a revision, could file appeal before Service Tribunal‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Senior Superintendent of Police, who was not Appellate Authority, could not adjudicate whether appeal filed by civil servant before Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, was competent or not‑‑‑Senior Superintendent of Police, through whom appeal was filed by civil servant, was under statutory duty to forward appeal to Deputy Inspector‑General of Police to whom appeal of civil servant was addressed‑‑‑High Court accepting Constitutional petition with costs, directed Senior Superintendent of Police to forward appeal of civil servant to Deputy Inspector‑General of Police before a specified date.
Mian Sarfraz‑ul‑Hassan for Petitioner.
Rana Muhammad Arif, Additional Advocate‑General for Respondents.
ORDER
It is argued that the petitioner challenged the illegal, mala fide and arbitrary order ‑of reversion through an appeal though addressed to the D.I.‑G. but routed through the respondent. The grievance is that the respondent illegally and mala fide blocked the appeal and did not forward it to the D.I.‑G.
2. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate‑General argued that the petitioner has a right of appeal and thereafter, he could also maintain a revision and finally appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, therefore, this petition is not competent.
3. The learned counsel while summing up the arguments referred to Para.2 of the comments of the respondent, according to which reversion to substantive rank from an officiating rank is hot punishment, therefore, appeal is not competent.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record. The admitted position is that the impugned, order was passed by the respondent and he is not appellate Authority, therefore, he could not adjudicate whether appeal against it is competent or not. He was under statutory duty to forward the same to the D.I.‑G. to whom appeal of the petitioner was addressed.
5. This type of arbitrary and illegal orders over‑burden this Court with unnecessary and fruitless litigation in the form of Constitutional petitions. The senior officers should avoid whimsical and arbitrary orders.
6. The upshot of this discussion is that this petition is accepted with Rs.1,000 as costs. The same shall be recovered Rs.100 each month from the salary of the respondent by the Accountant‑General Office and deposited in the relevant head of the Treasury. The result is that the respondent is directed to forward the appeal of the petitioner to the D.I.‑G. before 13th of March, 1999.
H.B.T./M‑998/L Petition accepted.