IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

( Appellate Jurisdiction )

PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, HCJ.
MR. JUSTICE AMIR HANI MUSLIM
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL

CIVIL PETITIONS NO.493, 494, 505 TO 508,

529 TO 532, 533, 601, 906 AND 911 TO 917 OF 2015.
(On appeal against the judgment dated 13.3.2015 passed
by the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi, in Appeals No.130-
134/2014, 2, 237& 238/2015)

Gul Hassan Jatoi (CPs.493,494,505&506/15)

Abdul Razzak Bugti (CPs.507&508/15)
Faqir Muhammad Jatoi (CP.529/15)
Masroor Ahmed Jatoi (CP.530/15)
Sohrab Ali Meo (CP.531/15)
Yar Muhammad Rind (CP.532/15)
Lal Bux Solangi (CP.533/15)
Abdullah and another (CP.601/15)
Province of Sindh thr. (CPs.906 & 911-917/15)
Chief Secy. Sindh … Petitioner(s)

VERSUS
Faqir Muhammad Jatoi (CPs.493,508,911/15)
Aijaz Ali Memon & others (CP.494,916/15)
Sohrab Ali Meo & others (CP.505, 913/15)
Ins. M. Azam Khan (CP.506,601,917/15)
Yar Muhammad Rind etc (CP.507,906/15)
Province of Sindh & others (CPs.529-532/15)
Masroor Ahmed Jatoi etc (CP.912/15)
Lal Bux Solongi etc (CP.914/15)
Rafique Ahmed Abbasi (CP.915/15)
… Respondent(s)

For the Petitioners : Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, ASC

(in CPs.493, 494, 505-506, Mr. Zulfiqar Khalid Maluka, ASC
906 & 911-917/15) Mr. M. Munir Peracha, ASC
Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Sr. ASC
Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, AOR

For the Respondents : Mr. M. M. Aqil Awan, ASC

(1-4) in CP.494/15
(1-22) in CP.506/15

For Govt. of Sindh : Mr. Abdul Fateh Malik, AG Sindh,

Mr. Adnan Karim, Addl. AG Sindh
Ghulam Ali Barhman, Addl. Secy
(Services)
 2

Dr. Amin Yousafzai, DIG

Naeem Ahmed Shaikh, AIG (Establishment)
Dr. Mazhar Ali Shah, AIG (Legal)
Aman Ullah Zardai, Focal Person, HD

Others Respondents : Not represented.

(in all cases)

Date of hearing : 29-10-2015, 3-11-2015 & 4-11-2015

Judgment
AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.- These Petitions for leave to

Appeal are directed against judgment dated 13.3.2005, of the Sindh

Service Tribunal, Karachi, whereby 08 Service Appeals filed by the

Petitioners/Respondents were disposed of, vide impugned judgment in

the following terms:-

i. Sindh Reserve Police and all other branches of

Police Force such as Rapid Respondent Force
(RRF), Sindh Reserve Police (SRP), Prosecution
Branch, Telecommunication Branch, Female Police,
Special Branch (Crime Branch) are separate cadres
other than the District Police/Regular Police,
although all of them are one Police Force which is
an attached department of the Home Department
under the Sindh Government Rules of Business,
1986 and Inspector General of Police is head of
attached department.

ii. Since all branches of Police Force are assigned with

different and separate functions they are different
cadres, therefore, the Provincial Government shall
frame recruitment rules and the terms and
conditions of their service separately for each cadre,
except for those cadres in respect of which separate
rules are already there such as Women Police and
Prosecution Branch etc.

iii. After framing of rules pertaining to recruitment and

other terms and conditions of service as required
 3

under section 2 of Police Act 1861, separate

seniority list of each cadre and in each scale/rank
shall be issued as required under rule 9 of the Sindh
Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and
Seniority) Rules, 1975 wherein it is provided that in
each cadre in a department there shall be a separate
seniority list of a group of civil servants doing
similar duties and performing similar functions and
for whose appointment same qualifications and
experience have been laid down.

iv. There is no provision in law for transfer of

officers/officials from one cadre to another cadre,
therefore, all the transfers made from Sindh Reserve
Police to District Police in violation of law and in
pursuance of various Standing Orders are hereby
nullified and all such officers are directed to be
repatriated to their parent branch i.e. Sindh Reserve
Police.

v. All the Standing Orders issued from time to time by

different Inspector Generals of Police/Provincial
Police Officers without approval of Provincial
Government are declared to be illegal and void to
the extent of prescribing the recruitment rules, terms
and conditions of service of the officers/men in
Sindh Reserve Police including devising of transfer
policy and pertaining to the assignment of seniority
in violation of rules.

vi. The Inspector General of Police Sindh is directed

not to issue any Standing Order under section 12 of
the Police Act, 1861 without approval of Provincial
Government and even with the approval of
Provincial Government no orders can be issued by
Inspector General of Police pertaining to the
recruitment and terms and conditions of service of
the members of the Police Force in different
branches and cadre, as such powers can be
exercised by Provincial Government only by virtue
of section 2 of Police Act, 1861.
 4

vii. The Inspector General of Police Sindh is directed to

ensure that all the training courses prescribed in the
Police Rules 1934, are duly imparted and the rules
pertaining to the maintaining of various promotion
lists are observed and the seniority lists are prepared
strictly in accordance with the provisions contained
in Police Rules, 1934, after due observation of
Police Rules, by the District Superintendents of
Police, Deputy Inspector Generals and the Inspector
General himself. It is further directed that
promotion list ‘E’ shall be published in Police
Gazette as required under rule 13.11.

viii. The Inspector General of Police is further directed

to ensure that no officiating promotion shall be
made as a matter of normal course and such orders
shall be made strictly in accordance with the Police
Rules and merely for the purpose of deciding fitness
and ability of officers concerned.

ix. The Inspector General of Police is further directed

to ensure that no officer is confirmed in any rank
while serving in officiating capacity, without
promotion in the substantive rank.

x. The Inspector General of Police Sindh is further

directed to ensure that no antedated confirmations
and promotions shall be made and the dates of
confirmations and promotions shall not be revised
by any officer or Committee of the officers.

xi. The impugned seniority list dated 7.2.2014, is set

aside and no promotion shall be made on the basis
thereof. The officers who were transferred from
Sindh Reserve Police to Regular Police shall be
promoted on preparation of their seniority list in
SRP, after framing of rules by the Provincial
Government in respect of Sindh Reserve Police
Fresh seniority list shall be prepared for the District
Police, Initially provisional and after filing of
objections the final seniority list and thereafter the
promotion in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of
 5

Police shall be considered by Departmental

Promotion Committee.

xii. The Provincial Government is further directed to

provide reasonable quotas of promotion for each
branch of Police Force/Cadre in accordance with
their strength. In this behalf the direction of
Supreme Court of India in the case of Raghunath
Parsad Sing vs. Secretary Home (Police)
Department, Government Bihar, 1989 MLD 2153,
should be kept in view. It has been directed by the
Supreme Court of India that “reasonable
promotional opportunities should be available in
every wing of public service. That generates
efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate
attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service.
In the absence of promotional prospects, the service
is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the
desire to serve properly.”

2. Originally, Petitioners Messrs Faqir Muhammad Jatoi,

Masroor Ahmad Jatoi, Sohrab Ali Meo, Lal Bux Solangi, Yar

Muhammad Rind filed Service Appeals before the Tribunal,

impugning the final seniority list dated 07.02.2014. Rafiq Ahmed

Abbasi Respondent No.1 in Civil Petition No.915 of 2015 was also

one of the Appellants before the Sindh Service Appeal.

3. Inspectors Ijaz Ali Memon and Muhammad Azam Khan

also filed Appeals before the Tribunal, being aggrieved of the transfer

of personnel of the Sindh Reserve Police to the Regular Police Force,

due to which their seniority was adversely affected. They also

impugned the seniority list dated 07.02.2014. They prayed that the

Sindh Reserve Police be declared as a separate cadre.

 6

4. Brief facts of the case of each of the Petitioners who filed

Appeals before the Sindh Service Tribunal are as under:-

C.P.No.529 of 2015.
Faqir Muhammad Jatoi vs. Province of Sindh

5. On 1.1.1987, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant

Sub-Inspector in the Sindh Reserve Police, through competitive

process. On 25.5.1989, he was promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector

and then promoted as Inspector vide order dated 20.9.2004 w.e.f

12.1.1998. On 30.6.2006, the Inspector General of Police, Sindh,

issued a tentative seniority list of Inspectors of Sindh Police,

whereafter, on 20.12.2008 another tentative seniority list of Inspector

was issued by the Inspector General of Police, Sindh. This list was

withdrawn and a revised seniority list was issued on 20.1.2009. On

20.4.2010, yet another seniority list was issued and the Petitioner was

placed at serial No.403 of the said list. The Petitioner raised

objections to the said tentative seniority list, which were never

responded to. On 23.10.2013, without finalizing the tentative seniority

list issued on 20.4.2010, yet another tentative seniority list was issued

wherein the Petitioner was placed at serial No.254. Ultimately, a final

seniority list was issued on 7.2.2014, on the basis of which a meeting

of the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened and more

than 80 Inspectors were promoted to the rank of the Deputy

Superintendent of Police. The Petitioner filed a departmental Appeal,

which was not decided within the statutory period, therefore, he

preferred a Service Appeal before the Sindh Service Tribunal,

challenging the seniority list dated 7.2.2014 with the prayer to assign
 7

him proper seniority. The Appeal of the Petitioner was disposed of,

vide impugned judgment.

C.P.No.530 of 2015.
Masroor Ahmed Jatoi vs. Province of Sindh.

6. On 1.1.1987, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant

Sub-Inspector in the Sindh Reserve Police after qualifying the

requisite examination. On 25.1.1990, he was promoted as Sub-

Inspector and on 8.7.1998, he was promoted as Inspector. On his

representation, the Petitioner was allowed inter se seniority with his

batch-mates w.e.f. 11.1.1996, and he was confirmed as Inspector w.e.f

11.1.1996, vide order dated 20.9.2004. On 22.9.2005, the Petitioner

was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police out of turn on

gallantry basis and was relegated to the post of Inspector in the advent

of judgment of this Court in the year 2013.

7. Two or three seniority lists were issued in the

interregnum, whereafter on 7.2.2014, a final seniority list was issued

on the basis of which more than 80 Inspectors were promoted as

Deputy Superintendents of Police. After exhausting the departmental

remedy, ultimately, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the Sindh

Service Tribunal, challenging the final seniority list dated 7.2.2014,

which was disposed of by the impugned judgment.

Civil Petition No.531 of 2015.

Sohrab Ali Mao vs. Province of Sindh

8. On 1.1.1987, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant

Sub-Inspector in the Sindh Reserve Police, through competitive

 8

process. On 22.5.1989, he was promoted as Sub-Inspector and on

8.7.1998, was further promoted as Inspector. On his representation,

the Petitioner was allowed inter se seniority with his batch-mates

w.e.f. 11.1.1996, and was confirmed as Inspector w.e.f 11.1.1996,

vide order dated 20.9.2004, a series of tentative seniority lists of

Inspectors were issued and, lastly, on 7.2.2014, a final seniority list of

Inspectors was issued on the basis of which 80 Inspectors were

promoted as Deputy Superintendents of Police. The Petitioner

challenged the said seniority list before the Sindh Service Tribunal, by

filing an Appeal, which was disposed of by the impugned judgment.

Civil Petition No.532 of 2015.

Yar Muhammad Rind vs. Province of Sindh and others.

9. On 1.1.1987, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant

Sub-Inspector in the Sindh Reserve Police, through competitive

process. On 25.1.1990, he was promoted as Sub-Inspector and on

8.7.1998, he was further promoted as Inspector. On 8.7.2000, he was

confirmed as Inspector, on acceptance of his representation, whereby,

he was allowed seniority with his batch-mates w.e.f. 11.1.1996. Many

seniority lists were issued in the intervening period and ultimately on

7.2.2014, a final seniority list of Inspectors was issued on the basis of

which more than 80 Inspectors were promoted as Deputy

Superintendents of Police. The Petitioner challenged the final

seniority list dated 7.2.2014, by way of an Appeal before the Sindh

Service Tribunal, which was disposed of by the impugned judgment.

 9

Civil Petition No.533 of 2015.

Lal Bux Solangi vs. Province of Sindh

10. On 1.1.1987, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant

Sub-Inspector in the Sindh Reserve Police, through competitive

process. On 22.5.1989, he was promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector

and on 8.7.1998 was further promoted as Inspector. On his

representation to the Competent Authority, the Petitioner was allowed

seniority with his batch-mates w.e.f 11.1.1996 and was confirmed as

Inspector w.e.f 12.1.1998, vide order dated 20.9.2004.

11. After a series of tentative seniority lists, on 7.2.2014, a

final seniority list was issued, on the basis of which more than 80

Inspectors were promoted as Deputy Superintendents of Police. The

Petitioner challenged the said seniority list by filing a Service Appeal

before the Sindh Service Tribunal, which was disposed of by the

impugned judgment.

Civil Petition No.494 of 2015

Gul Hassan Jatoi vs. Aijaz Ali Memon and others

12. On 1.1.1987, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant

Sub-Inspector in the Sindh Reserve Police and on 8.7.1989, he was

promoted as Sub-Inspector on officiating basis. On 20.9.2004, he was

confirmed as Sub-Inspector. He was finally promoted as Deputy

Superintendent of Police, vide Notification dated 24.3.2014. He was

one of the Respondents before the Sindh Service Tribunal, in Service

Appeals filed by the Petitioners Faqir Muhammad Jatoi and others,

which were disposed of by the Tribunal, vide impugned judgment.

 10

Civil Petition No.507 of 2015.

Abdul Razzak Bugti vs. Yar Muhammad Rind

13. On 1.1.1987, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant

Sub-Inspector in the Sindh Reserve Police. On 25.5.1989, he was

promoted as Sub-Inspector and transferred to the District Police. In

the year 2001, he was promoted as Inspector. His name was included

in the seniority list of Inspectors dated 7.2.2014, which was forwarded

to the Home Department. On 25.1.2015, a meeting of the DPC was

convened in which 155 Inspectors were considered for promotion,

however, they were not notified due to restraining orders passed by

the Service Tribunal in Service Appeal 134 of 2014 filed by Lal Bux

Solangi. He was one of the Respondents in the Service Appeals filed

by Faqir Muhammad Jatoi and others, which were disposed of by the

Tribunal, vide impugned judgment.

Civil Petitions No.906 & 911 to 917 of 2015.

Government of Sindh vs. Yar Muhammad Rind and others.

14. The Government of Sindh has filed the above-said

Petitions against the impugned judgment, pleading that the

Respondents in the Petitions were appointed as A.S.I in the Sindh

Reserve Police on various dates. After issuance of the provisional

seniority lists of the Respondents, objections were called and upon

receipt of the objections, a Committee was constituted to finalize the

seniority list, which was issued on 07.02.2014. It has been further

pleaded that on 20th September, 1972, an order was issued by the

Sindh Government, creating vacancies for a Special Striking Force in

 11

the Sindh Police, which has been wrongly construed as a special

cadre; that in the aftermath of separation of East Pakistan, language

riots disrupted in the Province Sindh and certain other parts of the

country, due to which it was deemed necessary to have Police Force

available to supplement the existing Police Force in Police Stations

and Districts in the advent of dire need. This force was created for

three months but the same continued thereafter; that vide notification

dated 11.07.1973, the nomenclature of the Special Striking Force was

changed to the Sindh Constabulary and designations of the officers of

the Force were also changed. In the said notification it was further

provided:-

“The force shall be administered as one provincial reserve

and its disposition will be decided by the I.G.P from time to

time according to necessity.

The Force shall be administered as a part of the Police

Force and provisions of Police Act, the Police Rules and

other relevant law shall apply. The officers of this

constabulary shall exercise such powers of command,

control, punishment and appeals etc. are exercisable by the

officers of equivalent rank.”

15. It has been further pleaded that, thereafter, a Provincial

Armed Reserve (PAR) was also created, which was subsequently

merged in the Sindh Constabulary; that finally on 30.04.1985, the

Sindh Constabulary and Anti-Dacoit Force was re-designated as the

Sindh Reserve Police and designations of the officers of the force

were also changed; that thereafter various administrative and standing

orders were issued by the Inspector General of Police and concerned

 12

Deputy Inspector Generals of Police, without approval of the Sindh

Government, which were merely administrative orders, for efficient

organization and guidance of the officers; that during the years 1984

to 1987, all appointments were made in the Sindh Reserve Police and

no appointment was made in the Districts, due to administrative

reasons and after the year 1987, no new recruitment had taken place in

the Sindh Reserve Police; that Assistant Sub-Inspectors and

Constables were recruited, from time to time and assigned to work in

the Sindh Reserve Police, which arrangement was also adopted in the

Province of Punjab; that the Respondents claiming seniority filed

Appeals before the Sindh Service Tribunal, which were disposed of

vide impugned judgment.

16. The Appellants before the Tribunal have filed Civil

Petitions No.529, 530, 531, 532, 533 of 2015, against the impugned

judgment. One of the Petitioners in Civil Petitions No.493, 494, 505

and 506 of 2015, is Gul Hassan Jatoi, who was one of the

Respondents before the Tribunal. Civil Petitions No.507 and 508 were

filed by Abdul Razzaq Bugti, who was also Respondent before the

Tribunal. Civil Petition No.601 of 2015 is filed by Abdullah, against

the impugned judgment. The Province of Sindh has challenged the

impugned judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, before this Court

in Civil Petitions No.906 and 911 to 917 of 2015.

17. The learned ASC Shahid Anwar Bajwa, Counsel for the

Inspector General of Police, Sindh, and for the Petitioner Gul Hassan

Jatoi in C.P.L.A. Nos. 493, 494, 505 and 506 of 2015, has contended
 13

that the Police Order 2002 was repealed through the Sindh (Repeal of

the Police Order 2002 and Revival of the Police Act 1861) 2011 and it

was the Police Act of 1861 which is currently in force. He made

reference to various provisions of the Police Act 1861. He stated that

under Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861, the entire Police

Establishment shall be one force; whereas, Section 4 of the Act

provides that the Inspector General of Police is the Administrator of

the Police force, Section 5 defines the powers of the Inspector General

of Police and Section 12 empowers the Inspector General of Police to

frame rules and pass orders, subject to approval of the Provincial

Government.

18. The learned ASC Mr. Bajwa has contended that Rule 12

of Chapter XII of the Police Rules 1934, deals with the appointments

and enrolments in the Police Force. Rule 12.1 deals with the general

recruitment, Rule 12.3 relates to recruitment to the Prosecution

service and Rule 12.3(B) pertains to appointment in Technical service.

He further submits that Rules 17 Chapter XVII of the Police Rules

pertains to the Reserve Police. The Sub Rules of Rule 17 provide

permanent reserve, a second reserve mobilized under the orders of

Inspector General of Police, and a third reserve mobilized on the

orders of the Government. He has further contended that there was no

order by the Provincial Government creating the Sindh Reserve Police

as a separate cadre. He then relied upon Rules 13.18 and 12.3

contending that these rules are relevant with reference to determining

the seniority of the Police Personnels.

 14

19. The learned Counsel contended that Rule 9(4) of the

Fundamental Rules 1922 and Rule 9 of the Sindh Civil Service Rules

1950, define “Cadre”. In support of his submission that the Sindh

Reserve Police is not a separate cadre, Mr. Bajwa placed reliance on

Muhammad Bachal Memon and others vs. Syed Tanveer Hussain

Shah and others (2014 SCMR 1539), PIAC thr. its Chairman and

others vs. Samina Masood and others (PLD 2005 SC 831) (Para 11),

Dr. Ahmad Salman Waris, Assistant Professor, Services Hospital,

Lahore vs. Dr. Naeem Akhtar and five others (PLD 1997 SC) 382

(Para 11, pg.90). He submitted that other provinces are treating their

Reserve Police as part of their regular police and in support of the

aforesaid contention he has relied upon Sardar Khursheedul Hassan

vs. IGP and others 1991 PLC (C.S.) 208, Muhammad Ali Qureshi

and 18 others vs. Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Punjab,

Lahore and others 1994 PLC (C.S.) 449. He states that in light of the

law laid down by this Court in the case of Tariq Azizuddin and others,

(2010 SCMR 1301), every employee ought to be considered for

promotion, subject to the Rules. He submitted that wings created in

the Police Force by the Inspector General of Police under Section 12

of the Police Act 1861, with the sole purpose of improving the

efficiency of the Police Force as a whole.

20. The learned ASC Mr. Bajwa submitted that C.P.L.A Nos.

916 to 917 of 2015 and 454 and 506 of 2015 also arise out of the

impugned judgment of the Tribunal. He states that the Respondents

Aijaz Ali Memon and Muhammad Azam Khan had originally filed
 15

Writ Petitions before the Sindh High Court, which were later

transferred / converted as appeals before the Sindh Service Tribunal at

Karachi and disposed of. The contention in the said service appeals,

which were originally Writ Petitions, was that the Sindh Reserve

Police was a different cadre. He submitted that on the other hand,

C.P.L.A Nos. 906, 911 to 914, 493 and 505 of 2015, pertain to

persons who were recruited in the Sindh Reserve Police along with

other Private Respondents. He drew our attention to para 4, at pg. 80

of the impugned judgment (Pg.102 of C.P.L.A. No.493/2015) to press

the point that one of the Appellants before the Tribunal, namely Yar

Muhammad Rind, was unable to show from the record, as to when he

was confirmed or promoted and that the onus lay on him to prove his

own case.

21. The learned ASC Mr. Bajwa, then drew our attention to

pg.216 of C.P.L.A. No.493 of 2015, submitting that one of the

Appellants before the Tribunal namely Lal Bux Solangi filed an

application to withdraw his Appeal, which was not decided. He states

that under Rule 1, Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if a

party applies for withdrawal of its Appeal, it ought to have been

accepted. Mr Bajwa contended that it was only Lal Bux Solangi who

had filed an Application for grant of interim injunction, which was

granted by the Tribunal and, as such, if his Application to withdraw

the Appeal was decided, the stay granted on his Application in Appeal

would automatically stand vacated on withdrawal of his Appeal.

 16

22. Mr. Bajwa further contended that Rafique Ahmed Abbasi

(one of the Appellants before the Service Tribunal and the Respondent

in C.P.L.A. No.915 / 2015) had no service record at all.

23. The learned Advocate General Sindh, Mr. Abdul Fateh

Malik, commenced his arguments by responding to one of our queries

as to how many Ranges were there in the Sindh Police. He has

referred to Rule 1.3 of the Police Rules 1934 and states that each

District under the Police Rules is divided into an administrative

establishment. He states that Rule 1.4 of the Police Rules 1934,

pertains to Ranges and further relied upon Rule 2.1 of the said Rules.

He submitted that Rule 1.3 of the Police Rules 1934, was amended on

22.08.1998, vide notification issued by the Government of Sindh,

under Section 46 of the Police Act 1861.

24. The learned Advocate General submitted that by virtue of

Section 2 of the Police Act 1861, the entire police establishment was

one force and to substantiate his contention relied upon Rule 1.5 of

the Police Rules 1934. He then read out Rule 17.9 of the Police Rules

1934, contending that the Rule pertains to the First Armed Reserve.

He, with some noticeable hesitation, stated that there were in all 5

Ranges in the Sindh Police. He conceded that Standing Orders issued

by the Inspector General of Police at times were without prior

sanction of the Government.

25. One of us (Amir Hani Muslim, J) inquired from the

learned Advocate General Sindh, that if the Police, as per his own

contentions, was one force, then why was the seniority of a police
 17

officer disturbed upon his transfer from one Range to another? In

response, the learned Advocate General Sindh, very candidly

conceded that the issue of seniority in the aforesaid situation is

something that needs to be attended to. On further enquiry as to how

seniority of a Police Officer on transfer is affected, the Advocate

General Sindh has relied upon Rule 12.2 of the Police Rules 1934.

26. The Advocate General was asked to pin point the Police

Rule under which an Officer’s seniority on his transfer from one

District to another District or from one Range to another Range is

required to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list maintained by

the District or the Range to which he is transferred. At this juncture, a

representative of the Home Department Sindh intervened and

submitted that, although there was no provision in the Police Rules

1934, which provides for placing the seniority of a Police Personnel at

the bottom on his transfer to another District or Range, recourse in

this respect could be made to the Civil Servant Seniority Rules 1975,

which do provide such mechanism. The Advocate General Sindh,

however, unequivocally submitted that there should be one seniority

list. The Advocate General Sindh further contended that there are a

large number of cases where officers were not confirmed after lapse

of 2 years.

27. The learned Advocate General Sindh, concluded his

arguments by submitting that the learned tribunal erred in law in

holding (at para 72(i) of the impugned judgment) that all branches of

the Police are separate cadres and contended that it was only the
 18

Prosecution Branch, the Telecom Branch and the Female Police which

could be categorized separately as cadres and prayed that the said

finding of the Tribunal should be set aside. He further submitted that

para 72 (ii) of the impugned judgment may also be set aside. The

learned Advocate General Sindh placed reliance on the case reported

as IGP, Punjab, Lahore and others vs. Mushtaq Ahmed Warraich

and others (PLD 1985 SC 159) (Pg.161) and Muhammad Nadeem Arif

and others vs. IGP, Punjab, Lahore and others (2011 SCMR 408)

(Pg.415).

28. In regard to the confirmation of Police Officers,

Mr. Naeem Sheikh, AIG (Establishment) Sindh Police, contended that

under Rule 12.8 of the Police Rules 1934, the probation period for

persons appointed directly as Assistant Sub-Inspectors was 3 years

whereas, under Rule 13.18 period of probation of a Assistant Sub-

Inspector appointed by promotion was 2 years. He submitted that

there was wisdom in the said Rule, as someone who had been

promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector, would naturally have

accumulated more experience than compared to persons directly

appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspectors and as such the probation

period for directly appointed Assistant Sub-Inspectors should in

principle be longer. The AIG (Establishment) states that the

probation period provided in the Police Rules is followed. The

AIG further stated that all cases with respect to seniority etc. should

be reverted back to the date of appointment. He concluded by stating

 19

that Rule 1.3 to 1.6 of the Police Rules 1934, should be implemented

in letter and spirit.

29. On a query of the Court as to whether there was any

training or examinations prescribed for persons appointed in the Sindh

Reserve Police, Mr. Naeem Sheikh, AIG (Establishment) Sindh

Police, apprised us that under Rule 19.25 of the Police Rules, 1934,

persons appointed to the Regular Police were required to undergo

training for a period of one year at Police Training School and 2 years

of practical training. However, he frankly conceded that none of these

requirements were complied with for the induction of persons to the

Sindh Reserve Police, as the same was not an investigative force. He

however, submitted that when the Sindh Reserve Police was

transferred to the districts, it became apparent that they were not

adequately trained and as a consequence thereof, Standing Order

No.125 of 1994, was issued mandating certain training courses for

persons belonging to the Sindh Reserve Police. He further made an

unequivocal statement that all officers appointed to the Sindh Reserve

Police, subsequent to 1994, have undergone the requisite training

courses and as of today, the training for induction into both the Sindh

Reserve Police and the Regular Police is similar.

30. At the very outset, Mr. Iftikhar Gillani, Counsel for the

Petitioner in C.P.No.601 of 2015, stated that his client was not a party

to the proceeding before the Tribunal but was adversely affected by

the impugned judgment and has therefore filed the instant Petition. He
 20

contended that his arguments would be confined to whether the

Tribunal was vested with the jurisdiction to dispose of the Service

Appeals in the manner it has done so.

31. He contended that Section 5 of the Sindh Service

Tribunal Act and Section 5 of the Federal Service Tribunal Act 1973,

are in Pari Materia and the said provision is to be read in conjunction

with Article 175(2) of the Constitution. He contended that directions

of the nature, which had been given by the Tribunal in the impugned

judgment, may only be given by the Honorable Superior Courts whilst

exercising their Constitutional Jurisdiction under Article 184(3) and

199 of the Constitution. He further submitted that the Tribunal can

only give directions in personam and not directions in rem and that

the Tribunal has gone beyond its jurisdiction and given directions

which only this Court can give under Article 187 of the Constitution

i.e. directions which are not prayed for.

32. He submitted that even the Honorable High Courts

cannot give directions which are not prayed for but, on the contrary,

may only mould the relief. Mr. Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, learned

Senior ASC contended that the Tribunal has proceeded to do complete

justice, a power that is only vested with this Court under Article 187

of the Constitution. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance

on the case reported as Dossani Travels Pvt. Ltd and others Vs. M/s

Travels Shop Pvt Ltd. and others (PLD 2014 SC 1) (Para 4, Pg.39).
 21

33. Mr. Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, learned Senior ASC, in

rebuttal to Mr. Aqil Awan’s submission that, by virtue of Article 212

of the Constitution, the Tribunal was vested with powers much wider

in scope than those exercised by the Superior Courts of this Country,

submitted that this might be true, but only with respect to an

individual and not to entire cadre or Police Force.

34. Mr. Zulfikar Khalid Maluka, learned ASC for the

Petitioner in C.P.Nos.507 to 508 of 2015, submitted that he adopts the

arguments of Mr. Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, learned Senior ASC for the

Petitioner in C.P.No.601 of 2015.

35. Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, learned ASC for the

Petitioners in C.P. Nos.529 to 533 of 2015, contended that the learned

Tribunal had erred by holding that Sindh Reserve Police was a

different cadre. He submitted that Section 2 of the Police Act 1861,

was clear that the entire Police Establishment shall deemed to be one

force. With reference to seniority, he contended that Range wise

seniority was clearly creating problems.

36. Mr. M. M. Aqil Awan, learned ASC for the Respondents

in C.P.Nos.494 and 506 of 2015, contended that there were two issues

before the Tribunal. The first issue was whether the Sindh Reserve

Police was a separate cadre, which the Tribunal answered in the

affirmative by holding that it was a separate cadre. The second issue

before the Tribunal, was whether the standing orders issued by the

Inspector General of Police, Sindh, were legal or not. On this count,

 22

the Tribunal was of the view that they were illegal. The learned

Counsel submitted that there was no dispute with respect to the

legality of the Standing Orders and it was agreed that they were

illegal, therefore, the only point that remained to be answered was

whether the Sindh Reserve Police was a separate cadre or not.

37. Mr. M. M. Aqil Awan, learned ASC, contended that

persons ranging from Head Constable to the level of Inspector fell

within the category of Upper Subordinates and that the seniority for

such Upper Subordinates was to be maintained under Rule 12.2(3) of

the Police Rules 1934. In support of his submissions, he placed

reliance on IGP, Punjab, Lahore and others vs. Mushtaq Ahmed

Warraich and others (PLD 1985 SC 159) (Pg.177) and Neimat Ali

Goraya and others vs. Jaffar Abbas, Inspector/Sergeant Traffic etc

(1996 SCMR 826). He submitted that the prevalent practice was that

the tentative seniority list was being made the basis of promotion.

38. With respect to the Sindh Reserve Police being a separate

cadre, Mr. M. M. Aqil Awan, learned ASC, contended that the Sindh

Reserve Police maintained a different seniority list, which indicates

that it is a separate cadre. He further contended that absorption does

not take place within the same cadre and as such, the fact that persons

are absorbed into the Regular Police from the Sindh Reserve Police, in

itself implies that the Sindh Reserve Police is a separate cadre. He

contended that the Inspector General of Police has referred to the

Sindh Reserve Police as a separate cadre in his Standing Orders, in

addition to it being consistently treated as a separate cadre at the

 23

departmental level. In this behalf he drew our attention to para 46 of

the impugned judgment.

39. To an observation of this Court that the Police should

have a centralized seniority mechanism in place, Mr. M.M.Aqil

Awan, ASC, submitted that the duration of training and courses for

persons inducted and appointed to the Sindh Reserve Police and the

Regular Police are different. The Regular / District Police is required

to complete courses A, B and C as prescribed under Rule 19.25 of the

Police Rules 1934, and there is no such requirement for the Sindh

Reserve Police. The learned Counsel further submitted that although

under Section 2 of the Police Act 1861, the Police Establishment is

one Police Force, the IT, Prosecution and Women Branch are different

cadres, each having their own recruitment rules within that one Police

Force. The factum of there being multiple cadres within one Police

Force is not a departure from Section 2 of the Police Act 1861.

40. In order to draw a distinction between a wing of the

Police and a cadre, Mr. M.M.Aqil Awan, ASC, stated that Traffic

Police and the Anti Terrorist Squad were wings of the Police and they

shared the same seniority list with the Regular Police and as such

were part of the same. He submitted that the Sindh Reserve Police, on

the contrary, maintained its own seniority list and therefore this was

further proof of its being a separate cadre and not a wing of the

Regular Police.
 24

41. Mr. M.M. Aqil Awan, learned ASC for the Respondents,

submitted that all the irregularities in the preparation of the seniority

list by the Police are brought to light upon a reading of paras’ 41 to 45

of the impugned judgment and that these findings have not been

controverted either before the Tribunal or before this Court. He

submitted that the Inspector General of Police has unbridled and blind

powers. He contended that it was the Inspector General of Police who

sanctioned horizontal movement and it was he, who made wings

within the Police. He further submitted that, if there was a clog or

fetter on the unbridled powers of the Inspector General of Police, it

was under Section 12 of the Police Act 1861, which mandates the

prior approval of the Provincial Government. In this behalf Mr. M. M.

Aqil Awan, learned ASC placed reliance on Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan,

D.S.P. and others Vs. Province of Punjab through Home Secretary

and others (PLD 1985 SC 195) at pg.204. He stated that the aforesaid

judicial pronouncement has laid down the scope of Section 12 of the

Police Act 1861, and the same has been continuously violated by the

Inspector General of Police. He submitted that it was the Inspector

General of Police who made the Sindh Reserve Police and it was he,

who had been transferring Assistant Sub-Inspectors back and forth.

The learned Counsel submitted that the question that begged to be

answered was how the continuous violation of Section 12 of the

Police Act 1861, may be stopped. He stated that one way to stop the

said violation had been laid down by the Tribunal through the

impugned judgment.
 25

42. Mr. M. M. Aqil Awan, learned ASC submitted that the

Tribunal while deciding the Appeals pending before it had not ignored

Section 2 of the Police Act 1861. He stated that Section 2 of the Act

does not stipulate that there shall be one cadre, but that there shall be

one Police Force. His contention was that Section 2 of the Act was to

be read with Rule 1.3 of the Police Rules 1934, and it was through this

Rule that cadres had been created. He further contended that the word

“Cadre” and “Administrative Unit” have not been defined, either in

the Police Act 1861, or in the Police Rules 1934. He submitted that if

the Police Rules were silent on a subject, the Civil Service Laws

would hold the field, as long as the latter were not inconsistent with

the former. Mr. M. M. Aqil Awan, learned ASC, submitted that

“Cadre” has been defined under Rule 9(4) of the Fundamental Rules

1922, as well as under Rule 9(8) of the Sindh Civil Services Rules

1950, with the latter definition also having been adopted by the

Tribunal in the impugned judgment. He placed reliance on a recent

judgment of this Court, reported as Muhammad Bachal Memon and

others vs. Syed Tanveer Hussain Shah and others (2014 SCMR 1539)

(Pg.1549) wherein “Cadre” has been defined and submitted that on

the touchstone of the aforesaid judgment, the said definition would

also apply to the Police Act 1861, and the Police Rules 1934.

43. The learned ASC, further contended that ipso facto, the

Police Rules 1934, did not apply to the Sindh Reserve Police, as it

came into being through a Standing Order issued in 1970. He

submitted that persons appointed to the Sindh Reserve Police had

 26

undergone only a year of training which was in clear contravention of

Rule 12.8 of the Police Rules 1934. He, with great force and fervor,

contended that the Sindh Reserve Police cannot be a part of the

Regular Police Force as it had not seen the rigors of Rule 12.8 of the

Police Rules 1934. With reference to confirmation, Mr. M. M. Aqil

Awan, learned ASC, contended that Rule 19.25 had to be read with

Rule 13.18 of the Police Rules 1934. He next contended that the

Inspector General of Police’s unfettered powers ought to be curtailed

with respect to transfers and the creation of wings etc. He submitted

that one way of achieving the aforesaid objectives is that recruitment

rules should be made, thereby channelizing the Inspector General of

Police’s unbridled powers. He submitted that even otherwise, the

Inspector General of Police cannot alter the conditions of service of

persons in the Police Force. He submitted that, on the touchstone of

Article 240(b) of the Constitution, the same was within the sole

competence and exclusive domain of the provincial legislature.

44. Replying to the arguments of Mr. Iftikhar Hussain

Gillani, learned Senior ASC for the Petitioner in C.P.No.601 of 2015,

on the question of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to issue directions as

it had whilst disposing of the Appeals, Mr. M. M. Aqil Awan

submitted that by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution there was a

bar on the High Court, and on this Court as well, to issue directions of

the like that can be issued by the Service Tribunal. He submitted that

the Tribunals powers, whilst adjudicating upon a lis before it, were

wide ranging in scope and in support of his submission he relied upon

 27

Pakistan Railways thr. its GM Vs. Ghulam Rasul (1997 SCMR 1581)

(1587) and Ali Muhammad Vs. Commissioner Afghan Refuges NWFP

etc (1995 SCMR 1675). Mr. M. M. Aqil Awan, learned ASC

concluded his arguments by submitting that, on the question of the

Sindh Reserve Police being a different cadre than the Regular Police

Force, the Tribunal dealt with the said question in a comprehensive

manner and referred to paras’ 52 to 53, 56, 64, 66 and 68 of the

impugned judgment.

45. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants,

the learned Advocate General, Sindh, and the Counsels representing

the Respondents at length and with their assistance have perused the

record.

46. Before we could travel into the scheme of the Police Act

and the Rules framed thereunder, it has been conceded by the learned

Advocate General, Sindh, that the Standing Orders issued at times by

the different I.G Police were without the approval of the Provincial

Government and, therefore, did not have any legal status. In view of

this conceding statement of the Advocate General, no argument was

advanced by either party to the validity or otherwise of the Standing

Orders issued by the I.Gs Police at times.

47. On the examination of the scheme of the Police Act

1861, we have noticed that Section 2 of the Police Act speaks of the

constitution of the police force. Section 2 is reproduced hereunder:-

 28

“The entire police establishment under a Provincial

Government shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed
to be one police force and shall be formally enrolled and
shall consist of such number of officers and men, and shall
be constituted in such manner, as shall from time to time be
ordered by the Provincial Government.”

Section 3 confers powers on the Provincial Government to

supersede or control any police functionary. Section 4 confers powers

upon the Inspector General of Police as its administrative head.

Section 7 speaks of appointments within the police force. Section 12

confers powers on the I.G.P to frame such orders and rules from time

to time, subject to the approval of the Provincial Government, relative

to the organization, classification and distribution of the police force,

the places at which the members of the force shall reside, and the

particular services to be performed by them.

48. On scanning the Police Rules, 1934, we have noticed that

Chapter-I of the Rules relates to departmental organization of the

police. Rule 1.1 defines General Police District with further

clarification that all ranks of police employed in the province are

appointed or enrolled under section 2 of the Act. Rule 1.2 confers

powers on the I.G.P which are in the nature of command, discipline

and administration. Rule 1.3 defines General Police District Division,

which provides the structure of the Sindh Police categorized in

different establishments:-

i. Training Schools (including Provincial Finger

Print Bureau)

ii. Special Branch.

 29

iii. Crimes Branch.

iv. District Police.

v. Reserve Police Establishment (inserted through

Government notification dated 22.09.1998, by
amending the Rules).

49. Rule 1.4 defines the administration of the aforesaid

establishments.

a. The district of the province as grouped in range

headed by the Officer of the rank of Deputy Inspector
General of Police.

b. The affairs of Police Training Centre, Sihala, initially

was headed by the Officer of the rank of the Deputy
Inspector General of Police. In Sindh subsequently
different Police Training Centers were established,
which now are under the command of Deputy
Inspector General of Police Training Branch.

c. Crime Branch is headed by the officer of the rank of

Deputy Inspector General of Police.

d. Special Branch is headed by the officer of the rank of

Deputy Inspector General of Police.

e. The reserve police establishment now styled as Sindh

Reserve Police is headed by Deputy Inspector General
of Police.

50. Rule 1.5 prescribes the limits of jurisdiction and liability

to transfer, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced

hereunder:-

“All police officers appointed or enrolled in Pakistan general

police district constitute one police force and are liable to, and
legally empowered for, police duty anywhere within the
province. No sub-division of the force territorially or by classes,
such as mounted and foot police, affects this principle.”

51. Rule 1.6 defines the administration and functions of

D.I.G Police appointed in different establishments specified in Rule

1.3, which is reproduced hereunder:-

 30

“Deputy Inspectors-General—Duties and functions of.- The

Deputy Inspector-General of Police Crime, Special Branch and
Crime Branch and Special Branch.
The Deputy Inspector-General, Crime Branch is
responsible, through the staff of his department, for the
intelligence organization of the criminal administration; in this
capacity he is called upon to assist both the Provincial
Government and the district authorities. He is also authorized to
call upon the district or railway police for action in such
matters, whether in respect of crime or intelligence as may, from
time to time, be considered to his charge. In respect of crime,
Department of Police Crime Branch will keep the Deputy
Inspectors General of Police a Special Branch, a Crime Branch
the ranges concerned fully informed of all action which his
department is taking within the sphere of their jurisdiction.
The Deputy Inspector-General of a range is responsible
to the Inspector General for the administration, training and
discipline of the police of his range and for the efficiency of their
organization and operations for the prevention and detection of
crime. In the exercise of this responsibility a Deputy Inspector
General will interfere as little as possible with the executive
authority of the Superintendents under him, and will permit such
modifications of practice and organization to suit local
conditions as he may consider advisable, and as the law and
these rules allow. He will use his powers of control to secure a
uniform standard of efficiency and the fullest co-operation
between districts and branches of the force in the circulation of
information and in action against criminals.
To ensure that efficiency shall not be impaired by undue
variation in methods or practice in different parts of the
province, Deputy Inspector-General of Ranges and of the Crime
Branch shall maintain close touch with each other by informal
meetings and formal conferences. They shall freely exchange
information relating to the criminal administration, and shall
ensure that co-operation between ranges and branches of the
force is as close as that between the district within a range.
Before issuing any circular order having the effect of altering in
principle any matter of departmental practice or affecting the
administration of the law, Deputy Inspector General shall obtain
the approval of the Inspector General. Copies of all such
circular orders and of instructions of general importance
whether previously approved by the Inspector General or not,
 31

shall be sent to the Inspector-General and other Deputy

Inspectors-General for information.”

52. The rule defines the parameters of the powers of all the

Deputy Inspector General of Police in the Police Force with the

distinction that the Range Deputy Inspector General of Police has the

power of administration, training and discipline of the forces within

his statutory Range, which shall include all the Police personnel

initially in his range and transferred to any other establishment under

the Police Rules. The aforesaid arrangement under Rule 1.6 further

has to be read with Rule 1.5, which provides that all police officers

appointed or enrolled in any establishment shall be construed as one

police force of the District and is obliged to and legally empowered

for Police duty anywhere within the province. This Rule even restricts

the sub-division in Police territorially by creating class such as

mounted and foot police, which may otherwise militate the scheme of

the Police Act.

53. The appointments and enrollments of the Police

Personnel are regulated by Rule 12 of the Police Rules, 1934 of

Chapter XII, which deals with three different sets of recruitment

processes described thereunder: -

a. Recruitment in prosecution (Legal Branch), Rule 12.6(3)(C).

b. Recruitment of Technical District, Rule 12.3 (B)
c. Recruitment of upper subordinate in Police, Rule 12.6.

There is a difference in the training courses of the

personnel appointed in the aforementioned units as prescribed in the

Police Rules.
 32

a. Training of personnel: -

i. Constables, Rule 19.2

ii. Upper subordinate, Rule 19.25

b. Training of officers in prosecution (Legal Branch), Rule 19.26.

c. Training of the officers in Technical District, Rule 12.3 (B) (2).

Rules 12.6 (3) (e) suggests that:

“(e) After recruitment no Inspector (Legal) shall

be allowed change of cadre from Inspector (Legal)
to the Executive of any other Branch in the Police
Department.”

54. On the basis of the aforementioned criteria of recruitment

and training in terms of the Rules referred to hereinabove, it can be

easily concluded that the Sindh Police force has three independent

units i.e. Executive, Technical District and Prosecution (Legal). On

scanning of the rules, it can be further concluded that the Police

personnel appointed in terms of the aforesaid recruitment process

cannot horizontally travel to any other unit referred to hereinabove

either by way of transfer or otherwise.

55. We may, however, observe that Rule 12.8 of the Police Rules,

1934 provides recruitment process and training program from

Constable to Inspector in the Police Establishment (Executive Unit) is

common.

56. There are six (06) promotion lists maintained in the Police

Department as per seniority and qualification (Trainings and

Promotional Courses) of the personnel in various ranks i.e.: -

 33

i. List-A, maintained in the District for Constables having 3

years’ successful completion of probationary period and
found fit for promotion to the List-B. (Rule 13.6).

ii. List-B, maintained in the District for Constables, who are

present in List-A and found eligible to be sent to Lower
School Course, which is a promotional training for
promotion to the rank of HC. (Rule 13.7)

iii. List-C, maintained in the District for Constables, who

have qualified Lower School Course and are eligible for
promotion to the rank of Head Constable. (Rule 13.8).

iv. List-D, prepared in the District and forwarded to the

Range DIGP for approval and maintenance of seniority
list. This list includes Head Constables eligible for the
promotion to the rank of ASI after successful completion
of Intermediate School Course. (Rule 13.9)

v. List-E, maintained by the Range DIGPs, containing

confirmed ASIs, who are eligible for promotion to the
rank of Sub-Inspectors. (Rule 13.10)

vi. List-F, prepared by CPO on the recommendation of

Range DIGPs and maintained by Central Police Office
(CPO) on centralized basis, containing confirmed Sub-
Inspectors, who have qualified Upper School Course and
are eligible for the promotion to the rank of Inspectors.
(Rules 13.15).

57. Under the Police Rules, 1934, the seniority of the

Constable and Head Constable is maintained in the District, whereas

seniority of ASI and SI is maintained by the Range DIG. The seniority

of the Inspector in Police is maintained by the Central Police Office.

The training and examination of the Executive Unit is provided in

Chapter XIX of the Police Rules.

58. Now with this background, we feel that we should also

examine as to how Sindh Reserve Police was raised. In order to

understand the establishment of Sindh Reserve Police, we have gone

through Chapter XVII, which deals with the Head Quarters

 34

Establishments and Reserves in Police Force. It appears that under the

aforesaid Chapter reserves are created in the following chronology.

59. Rule 17.9 (1) of the Police Rules, 1934 spells out the first

armed reserve, Rule 17.10 speaks of mobilization of the second

reserve and Rule 17.11 defines the mobilization of third reserve. In

the aforesaid rules, the first armed reserve is the Regular Police in

District maintained by the Superintendent of Police or Senior

Superintendent of Police of the District and is moved under the orders

of the respective range DIG of Police or Inspector General of Police.

The mobilization of second reserve takes place under the orders of the

Inspector General of Police, whereas mobilization of third reserve is

under the orders of the Provincial Government (Chief Minister

through Inspector General of Police).

60. The aforesaid three “Provincial Reserves”, by a Notification

dated 01.7.1980 were combined together and made part of Sindh

Constabulary Force with effect from 01.7.1980. The “Provincial

Armed Reserves” on its merger became the Sindh Constabulary;

before the merger of the aforesaid unit, it was regulated by the District

Police under Rule 17.9, 17.10 and 17.11 of the Police Rules, 1934. By

another Notification dated 03.4.1985 of the Sindh Government, the

‘Sindh Constabulary’ was renamed as ‘Sindh Reserve Police’ and was

given under the command of DIG, Training and Sindh Reserve Police.

61. We were informed during the hearing that the recruitment

process adopted for the aforesaid personnel of Sindh Reserve Police

was common to that of a District Police in terms of the Police Rules as

 35

initially they were given the training through Police Training Centers.

There is an additional requirement of acquiring practical training in

terms of Rule 19.25, which the Sindh Reserve Police personnel did

not acquire till 1992.

62. The issue cropped up when on 30.6.2010, a Standing

Order No.243 of 2010 was issued by the then Inspector General of

Police declaring Training Branch Establishment as a Range. On

account of this Standing Order, the DIG, training branch

establishment was unauthorizedly conferred administrative powers of

DIG range. The DIG training branch started recruitment of the Police

Constables as provided under the Police Rules. He also started

maintaining the seniority of all the Police personnel serving in the

training branch establishment against the language of the Police

Rules. The Standing Order referred to hereinabove was admittedly

issued without the approval of the government, which is a mandatory

requirement. Even otherwise aforementioned Standing Order is

beyond the authority of the Inspector General of Police as the Rules

do not confer upon him powers to alter the terms and conditions of

any of the establishment within the Police Force. The situation further

aggravated when the then DIG, Sindh Reserve Police usurped the

administrative powers of the range DIG unilaterally. He started

recruiting the Police personnel in the manner provided under the

Police Rules, which was beyond his authority. The seniority of the

Police personnel serving within the Sindh Reserve Police

establishment, which ought to have been maintained in their

 36

respective Ranges, was also maintained by him illegally. Neither any

Standing Order nor any other instrument authorized the DIG, Sindh

Reserve Police to exercise administrative powers of the nature.

Likewise, the Special Branch also recruited the Police personnel and

maintained their seniority within their establishment through the DIG

heading the establishment. However, the DIG Crime Branch

establishment neither exercised the administrative powers of the

Range DIG nor recruited any Police personnel, even the seniority of

the Police personnel serving in the establishment was not maintained

by him. In other words, the very Standing Order of 30.6.2010

declaring training branch establishment as a Range ex-facie was in

violation of Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861 read with Rule 1.5 of

the Police Rules, 1934, whereas the administrative powers unilaterally

exercised by the DIG, Sindh Reserve Police establishment and Special

Branch establishment were against the spirit of the Police Act and

Rules.

63. In the aforesaid events, when these three establishments

usurped the powers of the range DIG without any sanction of law, the

entire purpose of the Police Act and the Rules of 1934 was defeated.

Under the Police Rules all foot Constables appointed by this

establishment were given the training as provided to the Executive

Police Force, however, the Sindh Reserve Police establishment also

recruited ASIs in the same manner as is being done by the other

establishments, but they were not given the practical training as

provided under Police Rule 19.25. Subsequent thereto, after the

 37

issuance of Standing Order 1992, the practical training under Rule

19.25 was made mandatory for the Police personnel of Sindh Reserve

Police establishment.

64. During hearing of the appeals, the AIG (Establishment)

informed us that some Police personnel of the Sindh Reserve Police

sought their transfer from Sindh Reserve Police establishment to

executive Police establishment. Upon this request, a Standing Order

No.119 of 1992 dated 08.9.1992 was issued by the Inspector General

of Police acceding to their request subject to their obtaining practical

training provided under the Police Rules. Since the issuance of the

Standing Order all the Police personnel recruited in the Sindh Reserve

Police establishment were made to undertake practical training and at

present within the establishments all the personnel of the Police have

obtained practical training in terms of Chapter XIX of the Police

Rules, 1934.

65. We are disturbed in the manner the powers were being

exercised by the DIGs heading different establishments under the nose

of the government, which was not only against the Police Rules but

such practice has actually divided the Police Force. The

establishments, were created to facilitate the smooth working of the

Police. There is no concept of cadre within the Police, which is one

indivisible force. However, as referred to hereinabove the Police Rules

prescribe three modes in recruiting the Police personnel. The first

recruitment mode is appointment of the Executive Police, the second

recruitment mode, which has a different set of Rules refers to

 38

appointment of technical District Police and the third mode brings the

recruitment of the Inspectors / Sub-Inspectors Prosecution (Legal).

There can be employees in the Police Department, which are non-

uniformed like ministerial staff and / or I.T. Department but they are

recruited and regulated by the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the

Rules framed thereunder.

66. The learned Service Tribunal has misconstrued Rule 1.3 of the

Police Rules, under which different establishments were made in the

Police Force to facilitate the smooth working. By erroneous

assumption of the powers under the Standing Order or otherwise, the

DIGs, who were heading the establishments construed the

establishment as Ranges. Additionally, all the administrative powers

conferred on the Range DIG, i.e who heads the Executive Police

Range, were encroached on by the heads of these establishments

created under the Rule 1.4. The said DIGs of the establishments also

started maintaining seniority and making recruitments to these

establishments, in negation of the clear language of the Police Rules.

These actions of the heads of the establishments ex-facie militate the

provisions of Police Act and Rules which provide the Police Force as

one indivisible Force. The learned Service Tribunal loosing sight of

the fact that these establishments cannot be construed as Ranges in the

first place had directed the government to give them the status of

cadres, inter alia, on the ground of their respective functions

performed by the personnel in these establishments. The concept of

cadre has neither been defined in the Police Act nor by the rules
 39

framed thereunder. Though the term ‘Cadre’, has been used in Police

Rule 12.6(3)(e). Even in the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 or the

rules framed thereunder, the cadre has not been defined. However, the

term ‘Cadre’ has been defined in Rule 9(4) of the Fundamental Rules,

1992. The said Rule defines “Cadre” means the strength of a service

or a part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit.”

67. We have further noticed that the concept of ‘Cadre’ within the

Police service could only be introduced if it is established that the

recruitment process, the training and practical training of the members

of Police Force is distinct. Under the Police Rules, entry point of all

the Police personnel in Executive Police is common. They have

common recruitment process, police training and practical training as

prescribed under the Rules and once these trainings after their

appointments are completed, they are transferred to the different

establishments under the Rules. The posting and transfer to an

establishment of a member of Police Force is permissible under Police

Rule 1.5 would not change the Cadre of a police personnel. The Rule

1.5 allows the police personnel to progress vertically by the rules

prescribed and could be transferred to any of the establishment. There

is no restriction placed on a police official for transfer from one

establishment to other.

68. Moreover, section 12 of the Police Act, 1861 leaves no doubt or

ambiguity as to the fact that the Police Force is an indivisible entity

that is commanded by Inspector General of Police, who has vast

powers; subject to the approval of the government, he can frame

 40

orders or rules with regard to the organization, classification and

distribution of police force. In other words, the aforesaid provision

enables the IG Police to caters to the situation, where it is expedient

for him to issue such orders and make such rules, with the approval of

the government, as are required to meet the contingencies related to,

inter alia, prevention and detection of crimes.

69. The learned Tribunal has erred in treating the different

establishments created under the Police rules, 1.4 as various Cadres

classified on functional basis; whereas the overall scheme of Police

Act, 1861 and the rules 1934 envisage the police forces one

indivisible body possessing various establishments performing the

assigned functions such as District Police, Police Training Center,

Crime Branch, Special Branch, Reserve Police and so on. Each of

these establishments are in fact integral parts of the police force, and

under no rules of construction they can be construed as separate or

independent Cadres.

70. Therefore, the directions of the learned Tribunal to the

government to create Cadres in substitution of the establishments is

neither warranted by the Act nor by the Rules and will lead to

anomalies as has happened in the case in hand, where the DIGs of

different establishments started exercising the administrative powers

of the Range DIGs.

71. We are clear in our mind that there should be common seniority

of Police Personnel serving in all the establishments to be maintained

by District Police, the Range DIG and Central Police Office (C.P.O.)
 41

strictly as provided by the Rules in Chapter XIII, as discussed in Para

56 supra. Therefore, the Sindh Government and the competent

authority under the Police Rules shall prepare the common seniority

list of the Police Personnel serving in different establishments within

three (03) months of the date of this judgment in terms of Police Rules

and report compliance.

72. Likewise, we are clear in our mind that all the establishments,

other than the executive police establishment, i.e., in-charge District

police and Range DIG, are barred from making direct or indirect

recruitment or promotion.

73. Being the custodian of the service record etc. of the Police

personnel, the District police/Range DIG, shall make selection for

Police personnel for police training and practical training, and no

other establishment shall be authorized to make such selection. By

way of clarification it may be observed that the matters related to

seniority, promotion or trainings in respect of Police Inspector, the

competent authority is Inspector General of Police, as provided in the

rules 1934.

74. It has been observed that in many cases the Police personnel

have completed their statutory period of probation but they were not

confirmed for want of notification, and as result of which such

officials have suffered in terms of delayed promotion or loss of

seniority, which is a sheer negligence and abuse of power on the part

of the competent authorities concerned. Hence, we are of the view that

this practice must be brought to an effective end so that injustice may

 42

not be perpetrated against such officials. Therefore, in future those

Police Personnel who have completed their statutory period of

probation, whether it is three years or two years, they shall stand

confirmed whether or not a notification to that effect is issued.

75. We have further observed that a cherry picking is made in the

case of selection of Police personnel for police training or practical

training despite the fact they have completed their required period to

be eligible for such trainings, which amounts to denying them of

timely promotion for the next scale; hence, we direct that in future,

competent authority shall ensure that the Police personnel who have

completed their required period to be eligible for trainings shall be

forthwith sent for the training; and in case such police officials are

bypassed for such trainings on account of default by the department,

or to extend a favor to the junior, or negligence by the authority

concerned, their inter-se seniority and the accompanying financial

entitlements shall not be effected on account of their late joining or

completion of training.

76. For the reason stated hereinabove, we allow all these appeals

and set aside the judgment of the learned Sindh Service Tribunal. It is

expected from the Sindh Government and the Inspector General of

Police, Sindh that the directives contained in this judgment shall be

implemented in its letter and spirit without any undue delay and the

seniority list of all the Police personnel belonging to any of the

establishment created in terms of Rule 1.4 of the Police Rules, 1934

shall be prepared within the time stipulated in the judgment.

 43

77. Copies of this judgment be sent through fax and otherwise to

the Sindh Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Sindh, Inspector General

of Police, Sindh and Advocate General, Sindh, for their information

and compliance.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

JUDGE

Islamabad, the
____________________

Approved for reporting