Police Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1992

  1. Period consumed during inquiry — during the inquiry proceedings, the accused civil servant is on the disposal of the authority. According to the Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1992 and other relevant laws dealing with the civil servants, a civil servant is deemed to be on duty during the period he remains under the inquiry. S.P. Reserve v. Khalid Mehmood 2014 SCR 967 (C)
  2. Rules 1 to 4 — members of the Police Force are governed by the Police E&D Rules, framed under the Police Act — The members of the Police force have been declared Civil Servants for the purpose of Section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1975. Malick Hussain Shah v. Superintendent of Police Rangers 2014 SCR 1120 (K)
  3. — Rules 4, 13 and 14—-Award of minor punishments—right of appeal— rule 13(a) provides right of appeal only against major punishments—under rule 4(b) no right of appeal has been provided against minor punishments to the police employees—under rule 13 (b) only one appeal provided from the original order and the order of appellate authority shall be final—under rule 13 (c), the appeal shall lie to the officer one step higher than the one who passed the original order— in case of orders passed by the IGP, only review petition is admissible— Rule 14 provides that no order passed under these rules shall be subject to review by any Court/Tribunal. Superintendent of Police vs Muhammad Rasheed 2018 SCR 760 (D)
  4. Rules 4, 13 and 14—minor punishment—right of appeal—No right of appeal against minor punishments under rule 4(b) has been provided even before the departmental appellate authority—appeal before Service Tribunal not competent. Superintendent of Police vs Muhammad Rasheed 2018 SCR 760 (E)
  5. Rules 4, 13 and  14—Service Tribunals Act,  1975—Section 4—right of appeal—police employees—Minor/Major punishments—inconsistency among statutory provisions—under rules, no appeal or review except appeal before the departmental authority, lies in nay Court or Tribunal and the order passed by the authority against the major punishment is final—whereas section 4(2) provides the remedy of appeal—Held: rule 13 and 14 prima facie contradict the provision of section 4(2)—Observed that after promulgation of Rules, 1992, this Court in the case reported as 1993 SCR 241, declared the police officers as civil servants for the purpose of appeal under section 4 before the Service Tribunal—The point of inconsistency is not at issue—Point left open for resolution in any other appropriate case. Superintendent of Police vs Muhammad Rasheed 2018 SCR 760 (F, G & H)
error: Content is protected !!