Law:

Section:

(a) Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance (IX of 2000)---Ss. 2(a), 2(c), 3(1)(b) 9---Police Rules, 1934, Rr. 12.1, 16.1 16.2---Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988---Continued misconduct by 'Inspector' and Sub-Inspector' of police---'Disciplinary proceedings' and 'dismissal from service'---Competent authority---Scope---'Disciplinary proceedings' were initiated against delinquent 'Inspector' and Sub-Inspector' by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), who also ordered their dismissal from service---Legality---Service profiles of the Inspector revealed that he was awarded 22 major punishments during his service and he was also awarded minor penalties several times---Furthermore, he did not file any departmental appeals against many of the said penalties, which were the outcome of serious charges---Similarly service record of the Sub-Inspector showed that he was awarded major penalties 6 times during his service against which he did not file any appeal and only contested one major punishment---Rule 16.2 of the Police Rules, 1934 specifically provided that an order for dismissal may be passed on the basis of cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service---Consistent misconduct of the Inspector and Sub-Inspector reflected in their service profiles squarely fell under R. 16.2, Police rules, 1934---Rule 12.1 of said Rules described the DIG Police as appointing authority of an Inspector, and R. 16.1 conferred powers on the DIG to award major punishment of dismissal from service of an Inspector---Moreover, the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1988, conferred powers on DIG to award major punishment of dismissal from service to a police officer of the rank of Inspector---Competent authority under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000 was the Chief Minister, who in the present case had delegated his authority by way of two notifications issued in terms of S. 9 of the said Ordinance---Reading of said two notifications together, along with the powers of appointment under Rr.12.1 16.2 of Police Rules, 1934 showed that the Deputy…