AJK Police Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules, 1992

  1. 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)
  2. R. 6(5) — Inquiry — Authority — Jurisdiction of — Held: Once the authority decides to seek the explanation only then give personal hearing — Where the mode of inquiry is adopted the accused gets sufficient time to put up all the relevant material and facts on which he relies. Fazal Hussain v. Azad Government and 4 others 2000 SCR 369 (A)
  3. R. 13 — Respondent filed appeal before Service Tribunal against the order of D.I.G. which was in continuation of the order of his compulsory retirement — What the rule visualizes is that a direct appeal against any of the orders not visualized by rule 13. Dy. Inspector General Reserve/Rangers Police And another v. Raja Muhammad Arif Khan 2007 SCR 425 (B)
  4. Appellant was punished by officiating S.P., whereas the competent authority to punish the Head Constable was S.P. — Contention that officiating S.P. includes the S.P. Held: Devoid of any legal force and has no merits to be taken into consideration. Amjad H. Khan v. DIG Police Range and another 2004 SCR 151 (A)
  5. Officiating S.P. was virtually an A.S.P. — He was not competent to impose the punishment of termination of service upon appellant. Amjad H. Khan v. DIG Police Range 2004 SCR 151 (B)
  6. 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. Held: a civil servant is deemed to be on duty during the period he remains under the inquiry. S.P. Res. v. Khalid Mehmood 2014 SCR 967 (C)
  7. Dismissal  from service of SI — on ground of absence from duty — ex-Pakistan leave — not extended —though was entitled for further 78 days leave — 18 years of service — inquiry report — given even before publication of advertisement in newspaper — no evidence recorded in inquiry report — whole process of proceedings flawed — Civil servant’s service remained extraordinary — has obtained nationality of Britain — dismissal from service, harsh punishment in circumstances — compulsory retirement appropriate one — The appellant applied for extension of leave due to certain  unavoidable circumstances. According to the office report, keeping in view the length of his service, he was still entitled for further leave of 78 days under rules. Neither in inquiry report nor in the impugned departmental order these aspects have been considered. Thus, it is evident from the record that the inquiry proceedings have not been conducted strictly in accordance with law. Although, there are legal flaws in the proceedings of inquiry and the impugned dismissal order, however, according to appellant’s own produced record he has been granted British nationality and he is also practically out of service being abroad for quite long period, thus his reinstatement in the department like Police disciplined force does not appear to be beneficial for either of the parties. The appellant during his service, rendered excellent service and awarded for his gallantry. In this state of affairs, the punishment of dismissal from service appears to be harsh and for doing complete justice the conversion for dismissal order into compulsory retirement will serve the purpose. Muhammad Sajid v. S.P. Reserve & 2 others 2016 SCR 881 (A) 
  8. — second appeal before the departmental authority — removal from service — First appeal filed before IG Police, was dismissed — second appeal filed before Additional IG Police, was accepted — Proposition: whether second departmental appeal was competent? — Held: AJK The question before us is that either the departmental appeal before the Additional Inspector General was competent or not? It may be observed that against the order of his removal from service, the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, which was dismissed. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Additional Inspector General of Police. Under the AJ&K Police Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1992 no remedy of second departmental appeal is provided, but despite that the appellant filed a second appeal before the Additional Inspector General. In this state of affairs, it can safely be concluded that the second departmental appeal before the Additional Inspector General was not competent — Held: the judgment of the Service Tribunal being well reasoned and speaking one calls for no indulgence by this Court. Syed Faisal Hussain Shah Gardezi v. Inspector General Police & others 2023 SCR 463 (A)
  9. — removal from service — AJ&K Police Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1992 — second appeal before departmental authority — contention: though admittedly second appeal was filed but same was treated as revision — Held: the appellant had filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General but the Deputy Inspector General treated and decided the same as revision is concerned, the same cannot be given due weightage as the appellant himself admitted that he filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General. In presence of the admission that the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector, there was no space under the rules for filing a second departmental appeal before the Additional Inspector General of Police — Contention repelled. Syed Faisal Hussain Shah Gardezi v. Inspector General Police & others 2023 SCR 463 (B)
error: Content is protected !!