Police officers must avoid needless lawsuits: SC

Court endorses IG Punjab’s stance on police demotions

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court told police officers to avoid unnecessary litigation for securing promotions.

The three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Amir Hani Muslim, issued a 14-page verdict, endorsing the stance of the Inspector-General of Punjab police regarding demotions of police officials.

Officers claimed that their promotions were protected by the Supreme Court’s verdict of December 30 last year. These officers had been promoted on judicial orders but the IG did not accept their point of view.

“We once again reiterate that the Police are a disciplined force and officials/officers employed in the police should not embark upon unnecessary litigations such as claiming out-of-turn promotions. If, however, they have a genuine grievance, the same should be taken before the forums that the law provides instead of initiating proceedings before the high court under Article 199 of the Constitution,” the judgment, authored by Justice Hani, stated.

The court also expressed serious concern over the formation of a committee by the Punjab government to attend to the purported anomalies in its judgments against out-of-turn promotions in Punjab police.

“What the committee did is also not known. It is a matter of concern that it was not disclosed to us that the said Committee had been set up by the Government, of which we come to know from private parties. The referred to letter of the Home Department also makes no reference to this Committee”, the verdict stated.

On March 20 this year, the Punjab Home Department and the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, submitted separate reports.

The IG served notices on all police officers and after providing them opportunity of a hearing, prepared a comprehensive report dealing with cases of all police officers separately.

The Additional Secretary (Police) of the Home Department vide letter dated March 16 raised objections on the IG’s report only to the extent that a few of the out-of-turn promotion cases were “judicially protected”. It appeared that these officers had been granted out-of-turn promotions by judiciary itself. Punjab’s advocate-general lent support to the home department’s letter.

However, Justice Hani observed that it should not be forgotten that the competent authority (the IG) had decided not to grant out-of-turn promotions to officials who had subsequently approached the courts/tribunals.

“At that juncture the government of Punjab had resisted these cases, but had belatedly filed appeals before this court against the orders/judgments granting out-of-turn promotions. However, now … the Home Department and the … AG have taken a complete U-turn and support the … same … promotions that were earlier opposed by them on the pretext of the judgment in the Shahid Pervaiz case announced on December 30, 2016.”

The court observed that such matters fell under the purview of the Punjab Police, and matters of seniority were settled by the designated competent authority.

If any official had any objection, the same could be referred to the designated authority. If he or she was still not satisfied, an appeal could be filed before the competent tribunal, which in this case would be the Punjab Service Tribunal.

“Article 212 of the Constitution categorically mandates that such a tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction with regard to all matters relating to the terms and conditions of service. Against the decision of the tribunal, an appeal can only be entertained by the Supreme Court provided it involves a substantial question of law of public importance and leave is granted to consider the same (Article 212(3) of the Constitution).”

“We are clear in our mind that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution, let alone to issue writs of the nature that were issued.”

On the matter of the IG’s orders, the court observed: “We have also examined the same and have not found any illegality therein … In such a situation, and where the orders passed by the IG conform to the law as has been declared by this Court in the referred to judgments, no exception can be taken thereto. The report of the IG should be acted upon and notifications with regard to withdrawing the out of turn promotions be immediately issued and compliance report in this regard be submitted … within 10 days.”