| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2000 SLG 702 2000 SLD 702 2000 SCMR 75 2000 SLD 1113 2000 SCMR 75 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions Nos.256-K to 259-K of 1999 and 261-K, 262-K and 267-K of 1999, decision dated: 8-07-1999.
NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Petitions Nos.256-K to 259-K of 1999 and 261-K, 262-K and 267-K of 1999, decision dated: 8-07-1999.
NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through the AdvocatEGeneral SindH-
VS
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 6 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Police Rules, 1934--R.128---Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S. 11---Discharge of probationer police officers from service before completion of their initial probation period--Reports sent by Superintendent of Police to the Deputy Inspector-General indicated that serious allegations of inefficiency were attributed to the probationers---Effect---If such allegations entailed removal of services of the probationer, they were entitled to a show-cause notice and an opportunity to defend themselves against the proposed action---Probationers being civil servants governed by Civil Servants Act, 1973, and right of appeal being provided to them under the relevant rules, the provisions of rule 12.8, Police Rules, 1934 could not prevail over the same. Rule 12.8, Police Rules, 1934 no doubt indicates that officers referred to in the said rule are to be considered as probationers during the first three years of their appointment and they can be discharged from service during such period for any of the reasons mentioned in the said rule and no appeal would lie against an order of discharge, but evidently the present case was not a case of simpliciter discharge. Reports sent by Superintendent of Police to the Deputy Inspector-General indicate that serious allegations of inefficiency were attributed to the probationers. If such allegations entailed their removal from service, they were entitled to a show-cause notice and an opportunity to defend themselves against the proposed action. Furthermore, no doubt rule 12.8, Police Rules, 1934 lays down that the officer against whom action is taken under the said rule shall not have any right of appeal, but the probationers being civil servants, they are governed by provisions of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The right of departmental appeal being provided to the civil servants under the relevant rules, the provisions of rule 12.8, Police Rules, 1934 cannot prevail over the same. (b) Civil service--- ---- Termination of service---Appeal---Question of limitation---If similar action with regard to question of limitation taken by the competent Authority was found to be untenable in the case of other civil servants, relief could not…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492