2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

2002 SCMR 805; PLJ 2002 Tr.C. (Services) (sic) 161; PLJ 2003 Tr.C. (Services) 1 ref. Pervaiz Inayat Malik for Appellant. Malik Muhammad Yasin, District Attorney and Muhammad Yousaf, IL, DR for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd July, 2002. The appellant is ex‑A.S.‑I. police, District Lodhran who while posted at Police Station Galeywal, District Lodhran was proceeded against on the allegations that he investigated case F.I.R. No.146 of 2000 (Section 365 of P.P.C.) and F.I.R. No.180 of 2000 under section 337/A‑II/34 P.P.C. and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.22,000 from complainant Bashir Ahmad, whose wife, three daughters and one son had been abducted. The complainant alleged in his complaint that he had sold his two bulls, 30 maund of wheat and even electricity meter to make payment of demanded bribe to the appellant in connection with the recovery of his wife and children. Enquiry was held by a Police Inspector. According to the Enquiry Officer, in spite of notices sent to the appellant, he did not turn up. Resultantly, enquiry was concluded on the basis of record and statements of the complainant. However, the appellant gave a written statement (according to the Enquiry Officer) to the effect that he had not investigated the cases. On conclusion of proceedings, the appellant was dismissed from service through order dated 18‑11‑2000. He filed departmental appeal which was dismissed on 13‑2‑2002. Subsequently, he filed revision petition, which , was dismissed on 6‑9‑2002 hence this appeal before this Tribunal.

2. Learned counsel has referred to number of authorities including 2002 SCMR 805; PLJ 2002 Tr.C. (Services) (sic) 161; PLJ 2003Tr.C. (Services) 1; and some other authorities to emphasise that enquiry was not held 'properly in this case and on this ground alone, the impugned orders deserved to be struck down. Learned counsel further states that allegations were baseless and that the appellant had not even investigated the case and therefore, question of ‑receiving any illegal gratification did not arise. It is also contended by learned counsel that notices were not served upon the appellant from the Enquiry Officer and that the appellants had remained on leave for some time for which he had furnished medical certificates which should have been taken into consideration. It is also stated that action should‑have been taken against the appellant under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 whereas proceedings were conducted under Police E&D Rules 1975, when the Ordinance 2000 had already become operative.

3. The appeal is opposed by the respondents. Learned District Attorney maintains on behalf of the respondents that enquiry was held in this case by Inspector and subsequently by D.S.P. and the appellant was found guilty. It is also maintained that proceedings had been started against the appellant before the enforcement of tile Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and that the case against the appellant was already pending when the Ordinance 2000 was brought to the knowledge of the respondents. It is further maintained that the appellant was granted time and opportunity to join enquiry proceedings by D: S. P. (HQ), Lodhran and that notices were properly served upon the appellant, but the appellant did not attend the proceedings and, therefore, proceedings were conclude on merits in the light of available record. It is also maintained on behalf of the respondents that appellant had become absent and had submitted medical certificates without any leave application, and that the appellant had submitted those‑ certificates of feigned illness, only to avoid personal hearing. It is maintained that appellant had indulged in grave misconduct as he had received illegal gratification and helped the criminals instead of helping a poor person whose wife and children had been abducted.

4. I have considered the contentions from both sides and also perused the relevant record. I find that the enquiry was properly held against the appellant by a D.S.P. As per record, proceedings were stated against the appellant on a complaint which was submitted as for back as 22‑8‑2000 when the Punjab, Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000 had not come into force. Therefore, departmental proceedings under Police (E&D) Rules 1975 were conducted in accordance with law. I find that proper enquiry was held by D.S.P. (H.Q.) Lodhran into the allegations levelled against the appellant. The enquiry had been initiated on a complaint of a poor man one Bashir Ahmed whose wife and children had been abducted and who had gone to the police to get a case registered. As per findings of the Enquiry Officer, appellant had demanded and received illegal gratification from the complainant and had also not recovered abducted members of this family. According to the enquiry report the complainant had to sell his household articles including cattles to make payment to the appellant on demand of bribe. I have also gone through the record relating to absence of the appellant. The appellant states that he was ill and, therefore, could not attend proceedings and that notice of personal hearing was receives by his brother with whom he did not have good relations. According to record, the appellant submitted some medical certificates related to "low grade fever" but he never submitted any application for leave. This fact lends force to the contention of the respondents that appellant was avoiding to appear before the Enquiry Officer. If the appellant thought that he was innocent, he should not have avoided to appear before the Enquiry Officer. In the same way; the appellant was called for appearance before the authority but he did not appear although notice hat been received by his family. The appellant was however, heard by the Appellate Authority and subsequently by the I.G.P. His version was not found convincing. I am not convinced of the contention that the appellant was not given proper opportunity to defend himself. I find that he was repeatedly offered this opportunity. It was sufficient for the Enquiry Officer and the authority to ensure service of notice at the residence of the appellant and this was done. The appellant was a member or disciplined force. He could not become absent at his whim and to lose contact with his officers in accordance with charter of his duties. Therefore; considering the facts of the case, I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./129/PST Appeal dismissed.