1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑In this case the appellant Muhammad Azam an Ex‑A. S. I. Police, was involved in a criminal case F. I. R. No. 122 dated 13‑3‑1977 registered under section 376, P. P. C. at Police Station, Model Town, Gujranwala, on the charge of committing rape with Mst. Tahira Jabeen daughter of Bashir Ahmad on the aforesaid date. Since the case involved the moral turpitude, the department instead of waiting for the decision of the criminal Court, decided to proceed against the appellant. He was accordingly served with a show‑cause notice dated 23‑4‑1977 on the following counts: ‑ "You, A. S. I. Muhammad Azam No. 2929/LHR while posted at P. S Satellite Town, Gujranwala, as an Investigating Officer, called Mst. Tahira Jabeen daughter of Bashir Ahmad, caste Machi, resident of Street No. 14, Wahdat Colony, Gujranwala, an accused of case F. I. R, No. 68, dated 13‑3‑1977 under section 307, P. P. C., P. S. Satellite Town, on 13‑3‑1977 and took her alongwith you on the false pretext of saving her from the wrath of the parents of Mst. Lubna Nazli, which was the outcome of the complaint of injuring her Vagina, you deceived the parents of Mst. Tahira Jabeen with ulterior motives and took her to a quarter situated near Canal .Rest House, Gujranwala where you committed rape on her. Some of the neighbourers were attracted to the spot on the alarm of the girl. In the meantime you made good your escape on seeing them approaching the scene of occurrence at about 8 p m. A case F. I. R. No. 122 dated 13‑3‑1977 under section 376, P. P. C. was registered at P. S. Model Town, on the statement of Mst. Tahira Jabeen. It was a sensational crime committed by you which was likely to create a reaction in the public of City Gujranwala against the administration particularly the Police Depart ment especially during the days when the people are already agitating against the Government. This act on your part is unworthy and unlike of a Police Officer, who is supposed to be the custodian of law and a protector of the lives, property and honour of the public. This is a very serious misconduct and calls for a deterrent punishment under the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975."

2. The appellant in his explanation dated 29‑4‑1977 requested the Department to wait for the decision of the criminal case pending against him, but the Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala, vide his order dated 3‑5‑1977 relying upon P L D 1968 Lah. 786 and P L D 1973 Lab. 269 held that there is no necessity to wait for the outcome of the criminal case. He further held that the appellant because of his misconduct was responsible for bringing bad name to the whole Department and was thus absolutely unfit to be retained in the Department any more. He accordingly dismissed him from service w. e. f. 3‑5‑1977 on the charge of gross misconduct. An appeal to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore, was also rejected on 26th of September, 1977, holding that the appellant was guilty of moral turpitude and there was no reason to upset the order passed by the S. P. Gujranwala. The result of the Revision Petition to the Inspector- General of Police, Punjab, was also similar and for identical reasons, he too declined to interfere. The order dated 3‑12‑1977 was said to have been conveyed to the appellant directly.

3. As regards the criminal case, the appellant was acquitted on 14‑3‑1978 as the criminal Court observed that it was not a case of rape, but the father of Mst. Tahira Jabeen, the prosecutrix, had allowed her to go with the appellant in consideration of Rs.

100. Thus it was a case of consent. After his acquittal, the appellant filed another representation dated 24‑3‑1975, which too was rejected on 17‑7‑1978 by the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, and the appellant claims to have received the same on 24‑7‑1978. The present appeal was filed before this Tribunal on 24‑8‑1978.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no justification for dispensing with the enquiry in this case, and in fact no specific orders had been passed by the Authorised Officer in this regard. It was also argued that the failure of the departmental authorities to hold an enquiry has resulted in denial of reasonable and due opportunity to the appellant who was straightaway served with a show‑cause notice when he was in the judicial lock‑up and was dismissed from service when ‑he was still in Jail.

5. After hearing the appellant, we, however, find that the final order against the appellant, was passed in this case by the departmental authorities on 3‑12‑1977 and the appellant was required to file the appeal within one month of the receipt of the order, i.e. somewhere in January, 1978 at the latest. In our view, the subsequent representation filed by the appellant in consequence of the order of the criminal Court did not give him any entitlement to reinstate ment. In fact, the issue has been duly considered and decided by the departmental authorities in the first round of departmental proceedings holding that the fate of the criminal case had nothing to do with the merits of the case before the departmental authorities. Thus the representation made on 14‑3‑1978 did not furnish any good ground to the appellant for claiming the extension of time. In any case, in the criminal case the appellant had been let of as he succeeded to establish that the prosecutrix was a consenting agent. Taking the finding of the criminal Court as such if the appellant had taken Mst. Tahira Jabeen alongwith him by paying Rs. 100 to her father still it was sufficient to sustain the findings of misconduct on the part of the appellant. It was clearly a case of misconduct on the part of Police Officer to involve himself in such a shameful transaction which is bight unbecoming on the part of a member of a disciplined force. We, therefore, find no good ground for interference with the orders passed by the depart mental authorities. Thus the appeal is rejected both on merits and also on the ground of limitation.