SC expresses displeasure over Sindh Police conduct with citizens
Police dept appeals against tribunal’s decision to restore services of officials
FILE PHOTO: AFP
KARACHI:
The Supreme Court issued notices on Wednesday to the parties in an appeal filed by the Sindh Police Department against the decision of Sindh Service Tribunal regarding citizens being kept in illegal custody. A two-member bench comprising Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah was hearing the appeal filed by the police department against the restoration of two police officials by the tribunal.
The court expressed annoyance over the detention of citizens in illegal custody. "You pick people up and think they are your subjects. You think you can take any one in custody. Do you think they are your servants?" remarked Justice Ahmed.
"We detained the suspected persons for investigation," said sub-inspector Irshad Jutt.
"Are they your servants that they will come to police stations? You should go the people yourself if you want to investigate anything," Justice Ahmed remarked.
Sindh Police launch mobile app to report complaints
The additional advocate general said that the police department dismissed both the officials for keeping citizens in illegal custody. Anti-Violent Crime Cell (AVCC) Sub-inspector Muhammad Younis and Irshad Jutt kept three citizens in illegal custody but the tribunal ordered that the officials be restored to their posts. The additional advocate general prayed the court that the decision to dismiss both officials be revived.
The court issued notices to the parties involved over the plea filed by the Sindh police department.
'Illegal appointment'
The same bench directed for the documents submitted by University of Karachi's (KU) counsel to be provided to the petitioner and directed the counsels to prepare arguments for the next hearing on July 22 of the petition pertaining to the appointment of an associate professor as the acting director of KU's Sheikh Zayed Islamic Centre (SZIC).
A two-member bench comprising Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah heard the petition against Dr Abida Perveen's appointment as the acting director at the SC's Karachi Registry.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the associate professor, Dr Perveen, was illegally appointed as the acting director in June 2016.
KU's counsel maintained that Dr Perveen is an acting director and the advertisement for the appointment of a new director has been given.
"KU is defamed only because of you people, it is no more considered a reputable university because of such measures," remarked Justice Ahmed. "KU was regarded as a premium university 40 years ago but now it seems as if there is no chance that the university will get better," he added.
Hearing adjourned
The same bench adjourned the hearing of the plea filed against corruption in the Special Initiatives Department till an indefinite date due to the absence of the Sindh advocate-general.
Sindh Police to establish Regional Police Chief offices to head five ranges
"Where is Sindh advocate-general?" asked Justice Ahmed of the Sindh additional advocate-general, who said that the provincial advocate-general was out of station. The audit director-general unearthed corruption worth Rs105 billion in the Special Initiatives Department's RO plants project in Thar and other districts. The court had directed the Sindh chief minister to carry out an inquiry after the report submitted by the audit DG.
Plea rejected
The same bench rejected the plea filed by over ten employees against the service tribunal's decision regarding the illegal appointments of more than 500 non-teaching staff in the education department.
Counsels for the petitioners maintained that the education department had appointed 596 employees against 168 vacancies in 2011.
"Walk-in interviews are clearly a matter of theft of merit. Such appointments are already suspicious," remarked Justice Sajjad Ali Shah.
The petitioners' counsels argued that their clients' appointments were termed legal after the scrutiny ordered by the service tribunal. They were dismissed when they filed the plea against the non-payment of salaries, said the counsels.
The court remarked that the plea was filed after a delay of 17 months and asked whether the petitioners were sleeping during that time. The court rejected the petition while maintaining the service tribunal's decision.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 18th, 2019.
The Supreme Court issued notices on Wednesday to the parties in an appeal filed by the Sindh Police Department against the decision of Sindh Service Tribunal regarding citizens being kept in illegal custody. A two-member bench comprising Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah was hearing the appeal filed by the police department against the restoration of two police officials by the tribunal.
The court expressed annoyance over the detention of citizens in illegal custody. "You pick people up and think they are your subjects. You think you can take any one in custody. Do you think they are your servants?" remarked Justice Ahmed.
"We detained the suspected persons for investigation," said sub-inspector Irshad Jutt.
"Are they your servants that they will come to police stations? You should go the people yourself if you want to investigate anything," Justice Ahmed remarked.
Sindh Police launch mobile app to report complaints
The additional advocate general said that the police department dismissed both the officials for keeping citizens in illegal custody. Anti-Violent Crime Cell (AVCC) Sub-inspector Muhammad Younis and Irshad Jutt kept three citizens in illegal custody but the tribunal ordered that the officials be restored to their posts. The additional advocate general prayed the court that the decision to dismiss both officials be revived.
The court issued notices to the parties involved over the plea filed by the Sindh police department.
'Illegal appointment'
The same bench directed for the documents submitted by University of Karachi's (KU) counsel to be provided to the petitioner and directed the counsels to prepare arguments for the next hearing on July 22 of the petition pertaining to the appointment of an associate professor as the acting director of KU's Sheikh Zayed Islamic Centre (SZIC).
A two-member bench comprising Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah heard the petition against Dr Abida Perveen's appointment as the acting director at the SC's Karachi Registry.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the associate professor, Dr Perveen, was illegally appointed as the acting director in June 2016.
KU's counsel maintained that Dr Perveen is an acting director and the advertisement for the appointment of a new director has been given.
"KU is defamed only because of you people, it is no more considered a reputable university because of such measures," remarked Justice Ahmed. "KU was regarded as a premium university 40 years ago but now it seems as if there is no chance that the university will get better," he added.
Hearing adjourned
The same bench adjourned the hearing of the plea filed against corruption in the Special Initiatives Department till an indefinite date due to the absence of the Sindh advocate-general.
Sindh Police to establish Regional Police Chief offices to head five ranges
"Where is Sindh advocate-general?" asked Justice Ahmed of the Sindh additional advocate-general, who said that the provincial advocate-general was out of station. The audit director-general unearthed corruption worth Rs105 billion in the Special Initiatives Department's RO plants project in Thar and other districts. The court had directed the Sindh chief minister to carry out an inquiry after the report submitted by the audit DG.
Plea rejected
The same bench rejected the plea filed by over ten employees against the service tribunal's decision regarding the illegal appointments of more than 500 non-teaching staff in the education department.
Counsels for the petitioners maintained that the education department had appointed 596 employees against 168 vacancies in 2011.
"Walk-in interviews are clearly a matter of theft of merit. Such appointments are already suspicious," remarked Justice Sajjad Ali Shah.
The petitioners' counsels argued that their clients' appointments were termed legal after the scrutiny ordered by the service tribunal. They were dismissed when they filed the plea against the non-payment of salaries, said the counsels.
The court remarked that the plea was filed after a delay of 17 months and asked whether the petitioners were sleeping during that time. The court rejected the petition while maintaining the service tribunal's decision.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 18th, 2019.