Naimat Khan
KARACHI: Inspector general of Sindh Police Ad Khowaja, in consultation with Chief Minister Sindh Syed Murad Ali Shah and compliance of the Sindh High Court (SHC), on Saturday cancelled all transfers and posting made after July 7 by the home minister Sindh.
A notification issued by the IGP’s office directed nearly sixty officers, including Karachi police chief, AIG traffic, DIG South, DIG Traffic, DIG Driving license branch, DIG Mirpur Khas to resume their duties prior to July 7. SSP Central transferred and posted to new assignments after July 7 to resume their previous duties.
The two-judge SHC bench also restored the IGP’s powers of transfers and postings within the police department, declaring all postings and transfers carried out in the province after July 7 as illegal.
What came as a serious blow to Pakistan Peoples Party’s Sindh Government after months of row over the top police posting, the Sindh High Court on Thursday ordered Allah Dino Khowaja to continue functioning as Inspector General of Police Sindh with full powers. The court also ordered to annual the posting being made without consent of the Sindh Police Chief by Home Minister through a notification.
The judgment came a day after the Sindh Government sought reply from the IG to approve leave application of senior officials, which according to the rules set by Sindh Government notification, was required to get approval from home minister. In its order, the bench dismissed the notification for removal of Khowaja from the IGP post, ruling that the provincial government could not remove an IGP without any justification.
There is associated with the post of Inspector General a term or tenure as set out in the Sindh Government Rules of Business, 1986.
The term is part of the law of the land insofar as this Province is concerned. It cannot be disregarded, disobeyed or flouted by the Provincial Government. It has mandatory and binding effect. It must also, as explained herein above, be given due recognition by the Federal Government, the bench ruled, adding that the present incumbent of the post of Inspector General, the Respondent No. 7, is therefore entitled, subject to what is said below, to have the benefit of the term associated with the post.
Since the post of Inspector General has a fixed term associated with it, the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in the Anita Turab case is applicable. Therefore, if at all an incumbent can be removed during the term that can only be for compelling reasons within the meaning of the rule, the order reads.
Since the proper procedure in accordance with law has not been followed, the correspondence addressed by the Provincial Government to the Federal Government on 31.03.2017 and the follow up notification of 01.04.2017 are quashed as being contrary to law and of no legal effect. “The endorsement by the Sindh Cabinet of the foregoing at its meeting held on 05.04.2017 (vide agenda item No. 6) is also set aside as being contrary to law”, according to the bench.
For purposes of giving directions and making orders for enforcement of fundamental rights, the Police Act ought to be interpreted and applied by adopting the approach articulated by the House of Lords in the Ghaidan case, in applying the (UK) Human Rights Act, 1998. Sections 3, 4 and 12 of the Police Act in particular have been so interpreted and applied, keeping in mind at all times the objective identified above, namely that there must be autonomy of command and independence of operation in the police force.
If at any time the Provincial Government (here meaning the Provincial Cabinet) amends or alters the 1986 Rules in relation to the term or tenure of the Inspector General, such term cannot under any circumstances be reduced to less than three years. Furthermore, no authority or body can be given any power to curtail, reduce, suspend or otherwise dispense with the stipulated term. However, any such change, if ever made, shall apply also to the incumbent for the time being of the post of Inspector General, the bench ordered.
It is declared that the Sindh (Repeal of the Police Order, 2002 and Revival of the Police Act, 1861) Act, 2011 is intra vires the Constitution and that therefore the Police Act, 1861, as revived and restored by the said Act is the law in force in this Province and not the Police Order, 2002.
According to the judgment, the Respondents as aforesaid are restrained from acting in any manner that is inconsistent with, or which contradicts, any orders made or directions given in this judgment and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, from issuing, acting upon or giving effect to any circular, notification, guideline, instruction, order or direction that is inconsistent with, or contradicts, this judgment.