1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Appeal No. 374/420 of 1978, decided on 10th August, 1980. ‑‑‑ Disciplinary proceedings‑Departmental enquiry‑Dispensing with enquiry‑Discretion of competent authority ‑‑ Competent authority once deciding to hold enquiry‑Cannot recall its decision and dispense with enquiry‑Police official charged of misconduct of strike‑ Enquiry into alleged misconduct in progress‑‑Accused disowning participation in strike‑‑Competent authority deciding to dispense with enquiry and resorting to show‑cause notice‑Action of competent authority, in circumstances, held, objectionable and appellant, held, materially prejudiced in his defence‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.

4. M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑‑In this case the appellant an ex. A. S. I. was charge‑sheeted by the order of S. P. City, Lahore dated 7‑12‑76 on the charges of inefficiency and misconduct. It was alleged that in February, 1972, the appellant was posted as Reader to D. S. P., Sadar Circle, Lahore when on 24‑2‑72 the 1st Reserve on their arrival in the Police Lines refused to deposit the arms till their demands were not met with. Sub sequently they formed themselves into procession and moved out of the lines through Qila Gujar Singh Bazar led by the appellant. They visited the Railway Police Lines, Kotwali City. CIA/Station P. Ss. Naulakha, New Anarkali, Old Anarkali, Civil Lines, Yakki Gate, Tibbi City and Qita Gujar Singh and exhorted the station there to strike and join then. At 10‑30 p. m. they returned to the Police Lines Qila Gujar Singh and at the instigation of the appellant broke open the armoury and the Tear Gas Godown and took away Rifles, Muskets, Revolvers, Stenguns, Magaiznes etc. and also private licensed arms lying deposited in the Armoury. They were also alleged to have threatened the police guard who tried to intervene. The competent authority decided to dispense with the enquiry and on 8‑4‑1977 straightaway served the appellant with a show‑cause notice. The appellant replied to the same denying the allegations altogether. It was also stated in the reply that the criminal case filed against the appellant has also resulted in acquittal. It was also stated that after the strike in 1972, the appellant was promoted as A. S. I. in 1975, and has been performing his duties satisfactorily. But his explanations failed to find favour with the competent authority who dismissed him on 6‑6‑1978. The appeal preferred by the appellant to the D. I.‑G. Police, Lahore Range was rejected on 10‑8‑

78. His revision petition to the I. G. Police also met the same fate on 22‑11‑1978. Hence the present appeal was filed by the appellant before this Tribunal on 21‑12‑78.

2. The appellant stated that in fact the enquiry was ordered into the conduct of the appellant on the same charges on 7‑12‑1976 and while the enquiry was in progress the competent authority without any justification decided that the enquiry was unnecessary. He further submitted that the orders of the higher authority were also unjustified inasmuch as they have failed to take the notice of the contention of the appellant. It was stated that there is nothing in the Police Rules to empower the competent authority to recall this order which had been partly acted upon.

3. The learned Government Pleader has not been able to produce any authority to justify the course of action adopted by the departmental authority in this case. However, he argued that rules vested clear discretion in the departmental authority to hold or not to hold the enquiry. The competent authority did have had the discretion to withdraw the order even if the enquiry was in progress.

4. After hearing both the parties we regret our inability to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader. No doubt the rules did empower the competent authority to dispense with the enquiry but once they had decided to hold the enquiry then the enquiry has to be held. We do trot agree with the learned Government Pleader that the departmental authority could decide its action and dispense with the enquiry at that stage. The grievance of the appellant that he had been materially prejudiced in his defence appeared to be legitimate. Accordingly we accept this appeal and set aside the orders passed by the departmental authority and direct the Department to hold the enquiry and to finalise the proceedings accordingly. Even otherwise we feet that it would have met with the ends of justice if the appellant had been allowed an opportunity to disapprove his involvement in the strike. It was especially so when he had completely disowned his participation in the strike. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with the directions above. Appeal dismissed.