Muhammad Aslam v. Inspector General of Police, Sindh & others

Background

The appellant was a police constable in Karachi. A show-cause notice dated 03.04.2018 alleged several acts of misconduct, including being named in a criminal case. His reply was not found satisfactory, and a final show-cause notice dated 02.05.2018 followed, to which he did not reply. He was dismissed from service by order dated 24.05.2018.

On 02.11.2018 he was acquitted in the criminal case by a Judicial Magistrate, Karachi Central. His departmental appeal carried no date, but the appellate order recorded that it was filed on 01.03.2019, about ten months after the dismissal. It was dismissed as time-barred by order dated 30.04.2021, and he then filed a service appeal.

Arguments

For the appellant it was argued that a major penalty cannot be imposed without a regular inquiry, that his acquittal had not been considered, and that justice should not be defeated by procedural technicalities. The State argued that he had not replied to the final show-cause notice and had avoided the orderly-room hearing.

Issue before the Tribunal

Was the service appeal maintainable when the departmental appeal itself had been filed out of time?

The Tribunal's reasoning

Section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 allows an appeal to the Tribunal only after the departmental remedy has been availed. The Tribunal held that even if the period up to the acquittal on 02.11.2018 was ignored or condoned, the departmental appeal filed on 01.03.2019 was still late, and no explanation was offered for the gap between those two dates. A departmental appeal not filed in accordance with law means the departmental remedy has not been properly exhausted. Following its own earlier decision in Raisuddin v. Inspector General of Police, Sindh (1992 PLC (CS) 608), the Tribunal held the service appeal not maintainable.

It distinguished Gulab Ali Sahito v. Director-General, Intelligence Bureau (2002 PLC (CS) 243), because the appellant did not claim late communication of the original order. It observed that the law favours the vigilant, not the indolent.

Outcome

The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, with no order as to costs. The arguments about the absence of a regular inquiry and the effect of the acquittal were not decided.

Why it matters

This case is a counterpoint to decisions where an acquittal led to reinstatement. An acquittal can support a fresh departmental appeal, but the appeal still has to be filed promptly, and every period of delay has to be explained. A late departmental appeal can close the door to the Tribunal altogether.