Summary: Punjab Police Rules, 1934—R. 12.16 & Appendix 12.16—Punjab Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2022—Constitution of Pakistan, 1973—Arts. 4, 9 & 25—Recruitment in Punjab Police—Medical fitness—Visual acuity—Appointment as Constable—Disabled quota—Candidate suffering from impaired vision—The petitioner applied on open merit for appointment as a Constable in the Punjab Police but was declared medically unfit by the competent medical authorities because his visual acuity in one eye did not meet the prescribed standard under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The Federal Constitutional Court held that medical fitness is an essential and mandatory qualification for enrolment in the police force and assumes greater significance in a disciplined law-enforcement agency, where the nature of duties requires strict physical and medical standards. Rule 12.16 expressly mandates that every recruit must, before enrolment, be medically examined and certified physically fit for service, and Appendix 12.16 specifically requires that each eye independently meet the prescribed visual standard. Since the petitioner’s vision in one eye was recorded as “CF @ 1M,” which fell below the set criterion, he failed to satisfy the mandatory threshold of medical fitness and was, therefore, ineligible for appointment as Constable. The Court held that these provisions admit of no discretion and a candidate who does not meet the prescribed visual standard cannot claim appointment to the post. Service law—Comparison with serving officials on desk duties—No parity with candidate lacking threshold eligibility—The petitioner argued that similarly placed serving police officials with physical limitations were performing office duties and, therefore, he too should be appointed either as Constable or adjusted against some suitable post. The Court rejected the contention and held that such serving officials were not comparable to the petitioner because they had entered service after being declared medically fit and were later assigned administrative or office work due to service exigencies or subsequent limitations. The petitioner, on the other hand, never crossed the initial threshold of eligibility for recruitment, namely compliance with the prescribed medical standards for the post of Constable. Therefore, no case of discrimination or arbitrariness was made out merely because certain already-serving officials were performing desk assignments. Persons with disabilities—Protective legislation—Job quota—Beneficial interpretation—The Court nevertheless examined whether the petitioner’s case attracted protection under the Punjab Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2022, observing that society and law must move with the times to protect persons with disabilities from discrimination, particularly in employment. The Court noted that the 2022 Act, in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, reflected principles of dignity, non-discrimination, equality of opportunity, accessibility and inclusion, and that courts must play their role in implementing such beneficial legislation. The Court further observed that the absence of an express disabled quota in the advertisement was immaterial, as the statutory regime governing disabled persons formed an inbuilt part of all job advertisements to which the Act applied. Relying approvingly on Peerzada Waqar Alam v. National Accountability Bureau (2023 SCMR 742), the Court reiterated that disability quota is not confined to lower-grade posts and applies across an organization. It also cited, with approval, the Supreme Court’s order in the matter of Yousaf Saleem, a blind candidate for appointment as Civil Judge, and persuasive Lahore High Court precedent recognizing that disability cannot, by itself, justify exclusion from public employment where the candidate can perform the functions of the office. Persons with disabilities—Disability certificate—Conflict between disability assessment and recruitment standards—The Court found that the petitioner had fallen into an anomalous position. On the one hand, the police medical authorities declared him unfit for recruitment as Constable because of defective vision; on the other hand, the Assessment Board for Persons with Disabilities, District Attock, had not certified him as disabled for purposes of the 2022 Act, notwithstanding that low vision is recognized in the statutory schedule. The Court also noted an earlier certificate issued by Holy Family Hospital, Rawalpindi, opining that with his present visual status the petitioner was fit for office/light work as Constable only in the Punjab Police Department. In these circumstances, the Court held that the petitioner appeared to have been caught between two inconsistent administrative positions: not medically fit under police standards, yet not recognized as disabled for purposes of claiming employment under the disability quota. Administrative directions—Reconsideration of medical standards—Fresh medical examination—Reassessment by disability board—While declining to interfere with the recruitment policy or direct appointment of the petitioner as Constable, the Court observed that the Police Rules, 1934, were framed nearly ninety years earlier and that considerable advances in medical science and technology may necessitate re-examination of the police medical rules, especially those concerning vision. The Court, therefore, requested the Punjab Home Minister and the Inspector General of Police to re-examine the issue and to consider, if permissible under law, relaxation or accommodation in the petitioner’s case for appointment against a post ordinarily reserved for the disabled quota, such as desk or office work, provided he fulfilled all other requirements. The Court further directed the IGP Punjab to arrange a fresh medical examination from another independent hospital for an additional opinion regarding the petitioner’s eyesight and his suitability for employment as police Constable or any other position within Punjab Police, and also directed the Social Welfare and Bait-ul-Maal Department, Assessment Board for Persons with Disabilities, District Attock, to reassess whether the petitioner suffered from a disability in terms of low vision under the 2022 Act. Petition dismissed—Leave refused—The Federal Constitutional Court held that, at the present stage, the petitioner could not be appointed as Constable in Punjab Police because he had failed the mandatory medical test under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, and had not been issued a disability certificate enabling consideration under the disability quota. Finding no legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Lahore High Court, the Court refused leave and dismissed the petition, subject to the observations and directions issued for fresh medical examination, reassessment of disability status, and possible policy reconsideration by the competent authorities.

Summary: (a) Police Rules, 1934— ----R.13.6(2) & R.13.9—Promotion of constables as Head Constables—Outstanding merit course promotions—Vested rights—Effect of alleged repeal/omission— Police constables were promoted as Head Constables after completing requisite courses and their names were included in Promotion List, but later promotions were withdrawn and they were reverted/demoted under departmental orders on premise of “out of turn/shoulder promotions” pursuant to directions of IGP Sindh in light of Suo Motu Case No.03/2012—Service Tribunal upheld withdrawal without determining whether promotions were in fact covered by R.13.6(2) at the relevant time—Held, Service Tribunal was obligated to verify whether R.13.6(2) was in force when promotions were granted and, if omitted/repealed later, whether such omission could retrospectively disturb vested rights or closed transactions—Without examining service record, requisite courses/examinations, and applicability of rule at time of promotion, promotions could not mechanically be labeled as “out of turn/shoulder”—Impugned judgment suffered from non-application of mind and failure to decide essential factual/legal questions, hence could not be sustained. Cited Cases: Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others v. Province of Sindh and others 2015 SCMR 456 Contempt proceedings against Chief Secretary Sindh and others 2013 SCMR 1752 (b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973— ----Arts. 189 & 212—Binding effect of Supreme Court judgments—Role of Service Tribunals as fact-finding fora— Judgments of Supreme Court are binding under Art.189, including deprecation of out of turn/shoulder promotions—Held, notwithstanding binding principles, each service case must be decided on its own facts through independent and judicious appraisal—Service Tribunal, as appellate fact-finding forum constituted under Art.212, must examine service record and determine whether impugned action truly falls within ratio of binding precedents—Mechanical reliance on departmental stance, without factual verification of merit-based promotion and codal formalities, amounts to abdication of statutory duty. (c) Service Tribunal—Appellate jurisdiction—Duty to address factual and legal pleas— ----Scope under Service Tribunal law—Appeal as continuation of proceedings— Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to confirm, set aside, vary or modify departmental orders and must satisfy test of reasonableness and judiciousness—Held, Tribunal is ultimate judicial fact-finding forum for service matters; it must thoroughly examine original and appellate departmental orders and address all factual and legal pleas—Failure to examine crucial questions (whether promotions were merit-based under rules; whether rule was in vogue; whether promotions were improperly termed “out of turn”; and effect of alleged omission) vitiates adjudication—Matter required remand for fresh decision after affording opportunity of hearing and permitting production of relevant qualification/course documents. Cited Cases: Rao Muhammad Rashid and others v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and others 2024 SCMR 1864 = 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1349 Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Law and Parliamentary Affairs Department, Lahore v. Ali Ahmad Khan 2025 SCP 2 = 2025 SCMR 289 = 2025 PLC (C.S.) 549 = 2025 SCLR 25 (d) Police service—Out of turn/shoulder promotions—Distinction from merit-based promotions under rules— ----Uniform application of law—Requirement of record-based determination— Out of turn/shoulder promotions stand condemned in law and may be withdrawn, however, before depriving an employee of promotion already granted, Tribunal/Court must determine on record whether promotion was actually out of turn/without merit or granted pursuant to codal requirements—Held, where employees assert promotion under R.13.6(2) on basis of course merit and completion of prescribed stages, Tribunal must scrutinize relevant service record and dates to determine applicability of precedents; otherwise reversion becomes unsustainable on legal plane. Disposition: Civil Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals and allowed; consolidated judgment dated 29.04.2025 of Sindh Service Tribunal was set aside; matter was remanded to Sindh Service Tribunal to decide service appeals afresh in accordance with law after providing ample opportunity of hearing to parties, preferably within three months; petitioners were permitted to file relevant documents to establish qualification and completion of requisite courses prior to promotion.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 —- S. 9(c) —- Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A Right to fair trial — Safe custody and transmission of narcotics sample — Delay in dispatching sample — Failure to establish chain of custody — Effect — Prosecution alleged that 1280 grams of charas were recovered from the accused, with a 64-gram sample sent for chemical analysis — Delay of 15 days in sending sample to PFSA, and unexplained delay in depositing the remaining contraband in the Malkhana — Held, no evidence was presented to establish secure custody or safe transmission of the recovered substance or its sample — In absence of such foundational proof, benefit of doubt must go to the accused — Conviction under S. 9(c), CNSA could not be sustained — Reliance placed on Amjad Ali v. The State (2012 SCMR 577) and Ikramullah v. The State (2015 SCMR 1002). Disposition: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted. (b) Constitution of Pakistan —- Art. 10-A —- Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 Fair investigation — Bias — Complainant and Investigating Officer being the same person — Legal permissibility and implications — Inspector Naeem Zia acted as both complainant and Investigating Officer — Held, while not expressly barred under CNSA, 1997, such dual role undermines impartiality and fairness in trial — Accused’s right to cross-examine an independent investigator was denied — Petitioner specifically alleged bias and personal animosity — Failure to assign investigation to independent officer rendered the process defective — Supreme Court reiterated that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, particularly under laws like CNSA that reverse the burden of proof — Where prejudice is pleaded, dual role of complainant-cum-IO must be avoided and justified on record. Cited Cases: • Ikramuddin Rajput v. IGP Sindh (2024 SCMR 510) • Ashiq alias Kaloo v. The State (1989 P Cr. LJ 601) (c) Police Rules, 1934 —- R. 25.2(3) Duties of Investigating Officer —- Obligation to discover truth —- Prohibition against premature commitment to prosecution narrative — Held, under R. 25.2(3), I.O. must act objectively to find the truth and arrest actual offender — Must not commit to prosecution's version prematurely — In present case, the same officer who lodged complaint also supervised recovery, recorded witness statements, prepared site plan, filed report, and supervised dispatch to Chemical Examiner — Such defective investigation was likely to contaminate justice process and offend human rights — Superior officers must ensure investigations are impartial and legal. Judicial Observation: Defective or biased investigations undermine fairness and violate Art. 10-A; emphasis laid on constitutional due process and safeguards in narcotics trials. (d) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 —- S. 342 Statement of accused — Allegation of animosity against Investigating Officer — Evidentiary value — Accused in his statement under S. 342 Cr.P.C. alleged that police had falsely implicated him due to a financial dispute over unpaid food services — Allegations went unrefuted by prosecution — Held, once accused pleads prejudice, it is incumbent upon prosecution to dispel that apprehension through fair and transparent investigation — Failure to do so entitles accused to benefit of doubt. Final Disposition: Petition converted to appeal and allowed. Conviction and sentence under S. 9(c), CNSA, 1997 set aside. Accused acquitted and ordered to be released if not required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 ----Major penalty—Disciplinary proceedings—Faulty investigation—Absence of credible evidence—Petitioner was dismissed from service following allegations of faulty investigation, later modified to a reduction in pay—Tribunal found no direct or credible evidence linking petitioner to charges—Regular inquiry not held—Supreme Court held that once charges were found unsubstantiated and principles of natural justice violated, the imposition of any penalty, however minor, was unlawful—Tribunal erred in reducing penalty instead of full exoneration. References: Aamir Akbar v. Additional Superintendent of Police 2025 SCMR 632; Raja Muhammad Shahid v. IGP 2023 SCMR 1135. (b) Constitutional Law ----Arts. 4, 14 & 25—Due process—Natural justice—Fair trial—Supreme Court held that all disciplinary actions by public authorities must comply with constitutional protections of equality, dignity, and lawful treatment—Tribunal's decision to partially uphold penalty despite absence of inquiry and evidence constituted breach of these rights—Complete exoneration ordered. (c) Judicial Review ----Proportionality principle—Scope and application—Disciplinary decisions—Tribunal applied proportionality doctrine to reduce penalty despite finding no proven misconduct—Supreme Court held that such application was erroneous—Proportionality applies only where some legitimate state objective exists—Absent proven misconduct, any punishment is disproportionate by default—Doctrine cannot be used to "balance" injustice. References: Divisional Superintendent Postal Services v. Nadeem Raza 2023 SCMR 803; Government of KPK v. Nargis Jamal 2022 SCMR 2114; Postmaster General Sindh v. Syed Farhan 2022 SCMR 1154. (d) Service Tribunals Act, 1974 (Punjab) ----S. 5—Powers of Service Tribunal—Scope of judicial discretion—Tribunal must exercise discretion judiciously and within legal bounds—Once charges are found to be unsubstantiated, Tribunal cannot impose or maintain any penalty—Failure to exonerate amounts to misapplication of law and miscarriage of justice. References: Deputy Postmaster General v. Habib Ahmed 2021 PLC (C.S.) 531; Secretary, Government of Punjab v. Khalid Hussain Hamdani 2013 SCMR 817. (e) Remedies—Reinstatement with benefits ----Where petitioner is wrongfully dismissed and subsequently exonerated, reinstatement with all consequential benefits is the only lawful remedy—Tribunal's partial relief without legal basis was set aside—Supreme Court ordered full restoration of service from original dismissal date. Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed—Impugned order set aside—Petitioner exonerated and reinstated with all consequential benefits.

Summary: Criminal Procedure - Cancellation Report - Judicial Oversight: The prerogative of the Investigating Officer to recommend a case cancellation under Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules, 1934 must align with the standards outlined in Rule 25.57, where such a report is classified as a "final report" under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. A Magistrate agreeing with the police's cancellation report acts in an administrative capacity, and such orders are non-revisable unless procedural irregularities or substantive legal violations are evident. (Police Rules, 1934; Cr.P.C. Section 173; Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Function and Powers) Act, 2006, Section 9 (4), (7); Rule 2, Chapter 11-D, Volume III of High Court Rules & Orders). ------ Prosecutor's Role - Evidential and Public Interest Tests: Prosecutors must scrutinize the police's recommendations under Section 9(7) of the CPS Act, 2006 by applying evidential and public interest tests, particularly when concurring with the report. However, if in agreement with the cancellation report, a detailed evidentiary assessment is unnecessary. The opinion of the Prosecutor General, Punjab in an administrative capacity is not binding on the Magistrate. (Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Function and Powers) Act, 2006, Section 9 (7); Government of Punjab Rules of Business, 2011, Rule 3). ------ Judicial Interpretation - Magistrate's Discretion: While the Magistrate is required to give due consideration to the submissions of a Prosecutor made under Section 9(7) of the CPS Act, 2006, disagreement with such submissions does not mandate detailed reasoning unless explicitly stipulated by statutory provisions. The Magistrate's discretion in agreeing with the case cancellation report must satisfy procedural regularity but does not necessitate judicial reasoning in administrative actions. (Rule 2, Chapter 11-D, Volume III of High Court Rules & Orders; PLD 1985 SC 62). ------ Alternate Remedy - Private Complaint: Dismissal of a writ petition challenging the Magistrate's agreement with a cancellation report does not preclude the complainant from filing a private complaint on similar facts. This remedy, as held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, preserves the complainant's right to redress in criminal litigation. (PLD 1985 SC 62). ------ Precedent - Administrative Opinion of Prosecutor General: The regulatory role of the Prosecutor General, Punjab in issuing legal opinions under Rule 3 of the Government of Punjab Rules of Business, 2011, is advisory and non-binding. However, when such opinions form part of a case assessment under the CPS Act, 2006, the Court must consider them appropriately while exercising judicial discretion. (Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Function and Powers) Act, 2006; Government of Punjab Rules of Business, 2011, Rule 3). ------ Case References: Bahadur and Another vs. The State and Another, PLD 1985 Supreme Court 62. Relevant Provisions: Police Rules, 1934 (Rules 24.7, 25.57); Cr.P.C., Section 173; Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Function and Powers) Act, 2006 (Sections 9(4), 9(7)); High Court Rules & Orders (Rule 2, Chapter 11-D, Volume III); Government of Punjab Rules of Business, 2011 (Rule 3).

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199 Protection against police harassment—Marriage contracted by free will—Petitioners, a legally married couple, alleged harassment by private respondents in connivance with local police due to familial opposition—Held, protection under constitutional jurisdiction is available against unlawful interference in personal liberty and harassment—Police officials directed not to harass petitioners—Court reaffirmed that such matrimonial issues fall outside the scope of writ jurisdiction and should be resolved before competent forums if disputed. (b) Police Order, 2002 / General Law ----Police functions—Obligation to act fairly—Power to arrest without warrant—Held, police is under constitutional duty to protect citizens’ rights and ensure fair investigation—Use of police powers must be in accordance with law and cannot be employed to harass individuals in private matrimonial matters—Court deprecated misuse of authority and emphasized that police are required to protect, not abduct. (c) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ----S. 496-A Second marriage without dissolution of first marriage—Allegation by private respondent of “marriage over marriage”—FIR lodged during pendency of court’s restraining order—Held, lodging of FIR during operation of interim order amounted to violation of court’s directions—Court barred further action on FIR No.1109/2024 pending fact-finding inquiry—Directed DIG East to examine alleged police highhandedness if approached. (d) Civil / Matrimonial Disputes Private disputes—Jurisdiction—Held, questions relating to subsistence or legality of first marriage and civil consequences thereof are to be resolved by appropriate legal forums—High Court declined to interfere in disputed questions of fact regarding subsistence of earlier marriage or validity of subsequent marriage. Disposition: Petition disposed of in terms of SHO and private respondents’ statements—Court restrained further harassment—FIR proceedings stayed pending inquiry—Private respondents furnished bonds—DIG East directed to conduct inquiry upon complaint.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order dated January 9, 2024, by a Judicial Magistrate, which accepted the police case-cancellation report. The petitioner alleges deception by the respondents, leading to the registration of FIR No.1781/2023 under sections 420, 468, and 471 PPC at Police Station Ferozwala, District Sheikhupura. The petitioner claims he entered into an agreement to sell one acre of land, receiving partial payment, but later discovered that the agreement covered his entire land without his consent. The police recommended the case for cancellation, stating it was a civil dispute, which the Magistrate accepted without proper notice to the petitioner. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Magistrate erred in agreeing with the case-cancellation report without properly notifying the complainant/petitioner. 2- Whether the police and Magistrate followed the correct legal procedures in recommending and accepting the case-cancellation report. 3- Whether the petitioner has the option for change of investigation and subsequent legal remedies. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Issue No.1: Notice to the Complainant The court found that the Magistrate failed to ensure proper notice was given to the complainant before agreeing with the case-cancellation report. As per Section 173 of the Cr.P.C and Rule 25.57 of the Police Rules, 1934, the complainant must be informed of the investigation's outcome. The impugned order claimed the complainant did not appear, but the court noted this should not adversely affect the complainant's case. ---Issue No.2: Legal Procedures for Case-Cancellation The court examined the procedures under Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules, 1934, and found that the police followed the correct process in recommending the case for cancellation, identifying the matter as a civil dispute. The court also referenced the High Court Rules & Orders (1931), which outline the grounds for case cancellation. It was emphasized that the Magistrate acts administratively, not judicially, in agreeing with a cancellation report but must still ensure fairness and due process. ---Issue No.3: Change of Investigation and Legal Remedies The court acknowledged the petitioner's pending application for change of investigation. The police can consider such applications, and a senior officer can direct reinvestigation with the Magistrate's permission. If declined, the complainant can pursue alternate remedies, such as private prosecution, as highlighted in "BAHADUR AND ANOTHER Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER" (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 62). -----Citations/Precedents: "BAHADUR AND ANOTHER Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER" (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 62) "WAZIR Versus THE STATE" (PLD 1962 (W.P.) Lahore 405) "DIN MUHAMMAD SHAKIR alias D.M. SHAKIR versus D.S.P., ICHHRA, LAHORE" (PLD 1977 Lahore 180) "MEHDI HUSSAIN SHAH Versus Malik KHIZER HAYAT KHAN AND ANOTHER" (1983 P Cr. L J 1601) "ASGHAR ALI Versus THE STATE" (1983 P Cr. L J 2187) ----Quote: After cancellation of FIR, police can reinvestigate the case but with the permission of concerned Magistrate.

Summary: Background:In Civil Appeal No. 3-L of 2016, the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, and others (appellants) challenged an order from the Punjab Service Tribunal that favored Waris Ali (deceased), represented by his legal representatives (respondents). The Tribunal's decision, dated 04.03.2015, allowed Waris Ali's appeal regarding his claim for proforma promotion to the ranks of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) and Sub-Inspector (SI).----Issues:Whether Waris Ali was entitled to proforma promotions based on the promotions of those he claimed were his juniors.Interpretation and application of the Police Rules, 1934, concerning promotions based on mandatory training courses.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Justice Ayesha A. Malik delivered the judgment. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the Tribunal's decision. The Court held that the respondents had not established that the personnel purported to be juniors were indeed junior to Waris Ali. Additionally, the Court emphasized that promotions in the police force depend strictly on the completion of stipulated training courses, as outlined in Rule 19.25 of the Police Rules, 1934.The Court underscored that the promotions of the individuals in question were not out of turn but based on their completion of necessary training and courses before Waris Ali. Thus, the claim for proforma promotion from the dates these individuals were promoted was unfounded and contrary to the regulations governing police promotions.----Citations/Precedents:Syed Hammad Nabi v. Inspector General of Police (2023 SCMR 584): This case was cited to support the principle that promotions within the police should be based on the completion of required training and adherence to established service rules, rather than seniority alone.---Quote: ''For the promotion of upper subordinates in the police force, training as per Rule 19.25 of the Police Rules, 1934 is mandatory and promotion will take effect once the requirement of law is fulfilled. An effort should be made to change the culture by emphasizing knowledge, skill, and performance because the police cannot thrive if it is consistently consumed in litigation for promotion and other service-related benefits.''

Summary: Background:In the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Muhammad Saleem challenged the order dated 06.03.2024 issued by the Regional Police Officer, Multan. The impugned order directed the transfer of investigation in case F.I.R No. 2748 of 2023, registered for an offense under section 489F P.P.C. The original investigation was at the Police Station City Lodhran, which was then recommended to be transferred by the Regional Standing Board following an application by Muhammad Usman (respondent No. 6). The petitioner, Muhammad Saleem, argued that the transfer of the investigation was illegal, arbitrary, and against the established facts and law.----Issues:The primary legal issue in this case was whether the order by the Regional Police Officer to transfer the investigation was lawful and followed the procedural requirements under Article 18(A) of the Police Order, 2002, as amended in 2013.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court dismissed the petition, finding it meritless. It held that the Regional Police Officer's decision was in accordance with the law, specifically referencing Article 18(A) of the Police Order, 2002. The Court emphasized that the Regional Police Officer had the authority to transfer the investigation after receiving recommendations from the Regional Standing Board and did not require specific reasons for refusal from the District Police Officer as a precondition for considering a transfer request. The order was thus found to adhere to the legal requirements and procedures, affirming that the legislation did not restrict the submission of a subsequent application to the Regional Police Officer following a dismissal by the District Police Officer.----Citations/Precedents:Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973: This article provides the High Courts with the power to ensure that no person is dealt with in a manner that is arbitrary or violative of law.Article 18(A) of the Police Order, 2002, Amendment Act, 2013: Detailed the procedure for the transfer of investigation, stipulating the roles and sequential approvals required from the District and Regional Police Officers.General principles of statutory interpretation: Applied to affirm that the words of a statute should be given their ordinary and grammatical meaning unless such interpretation leads to an absurdity.

Summary: Background:The petitioner, Ali Raza, a constable in the Punjab Police, was dismissed from service on charges of inefficiency and misconduct, including involvement in criminal cases. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated under the Punjab Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975, and the dismissal order was issued on March 8, 2019. Raza's departmental appeal was filed on December 26, 2019, but was rejected as time-barred on March 14, 2020. His subsequent service appeal was also dismissed by the Punjab Service Tribunal on September 1, 2020, on similar grounds. Raza contended that the Punjab Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975, do not specify a time limit for filing appeals, relying on a precedent set in the case of Tahira Paras.-----Issues:The central issue was whether an appeal could be dismissed due to lapse of time when the governing rules do not specify a deadline for filing such appeals.-----Holding/Reasoning:The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that despite the absence of a specified deadline in the Punjab Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975, the appeal was correctly dismissed as time-barred by applying the 60-day limit under Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The Court found the petitioner's appeal to be significantly late, filed nine months and 18 days after the original order. The Court also deemed the reliance on the Tahira Paras case as misplaced, labeling it as per incuriam (decided without regard to the law) since it overlooked the applicable provision in the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Additionally, the Court dismissed the petitioner's argument regarding the delay in receiving the punishment order, considering it an afterthought and not entertained at the appellate stage or before the Tribunal.-----Citations/Precedents:Raja Khan v. Manager, Faisalabad Electricity Supply Company (WAPDA) [2011 PLC(CS) 856]Muhammad Aslam v. WAPDA and others [2007 SCMR 513]NED University of Technology v. Ashfaq Hussain Shah [2006 SCMR 453]Chairman, PIA and others v. Naseem Malik [PLD 1990 SC 951]Tahira Paras v. Chief Traffic Officer, Lahore [C.P.2477-L/2019] (Referred but found per incuriam)Police Authority for Huddersfield v. Watson [(1947) K.B. 842] (Referenced in the context of administrative authority and discipline)