1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑ Muhammad Ajmal Sub. Inspector S. H. O., P. S. Warburton, District Sheikhupura, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against order, dated 9th May, 1984, passed by the D.I.‑G. Police, Lahore Range, Lahore. He has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala, Deputy Inspector‑General of Police Lahore Range, Lahore, as res pondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside by accepting his appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on the night between 3‑4/5/82, 3 culprits in Police uniform committed Harrabah with the jurisdiction of P. S. Pindi Bhattian and deprived 5 persons of 4 wrist watches and a sum of Rs. 18,000 in cash. All the five persons came to the Police Station and reported the matter to police but instead of registering a case he detailed his Muharrir Head Clerk to proceed to the spot and verify the facts and even thereafter he did not register the case nor reported the matter to his S.D.P.O. On getting this information about the incident, the S. P. Gujranwala issued a show‑cause notice to the appellant and after affording him full opportunity to explain his position, he forfeited his one year approved service permanently by his order dated 5th June, 1982. The appellant preferred appeal before the D.I.‑G. Police, Lahore. Range, Lahore, which was rejected by him vide order, dated 9th May, 1984. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Deputy District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and perused the entire record of the case carefully with their assistance. 5. It has been submitted an behalf of the appellant through his learned counsel that on the 3rd of May, 1982, the appellant left the Police Station at 6 p. m. for Patrol Duty vide Rapat No. 8 in the daily diary and returned to Police Station on 4th May, 1982 at 4 p. m. The appellant thereafter left for Lahore on President's duty and also for his appearance before the Lahore High Court in pursuance to the order of the Hon'ble Court on 4th May, 1982. It has been submitted that the appellant stayed in the Police Station only for 15 minutes and left the same at 4.15 a. m. These facts were established from Rapat No. 17 of the daily diary of 4th May, 1982. He has, produced the daily diary(s) as Annexures 'G' and 1H' on the record. It has been further submitted that S. P. was factually incorrect by holding the appellant guilty as he was not on duty at that time when the said Harrabah took place and no body approached him to register the case for the said incident. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the observa tion of the learned S. P. who indicated in his order that Rapat Nos, 15 and 17 were fake, therefore, the said Rapat could not be relied upon. While arguing his case further, it has been submitted that learned S. P. had taken a view that he visited the spot and was satisfied that the appellant was guilty of the charge. It has been further argued that this fact was neither brought to the notice of the appellant through the charge sheet nor it was intimated to the appellant at the time of hearing, According to him the S. P. visited the spot without notice and in the absence of the appellant and as such the appellant was condemned unheard. With regard to the observation of the learned S.P. that the appellant had admitted his fault learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that this was incorrect observation as the appellant has vehemently challenged the order of S.P. before the D.I.‑G. Police. 6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the respondents in extenso and submitted that the appellant was fully responsible for this lapse because according to S. P. it was found on the spot that the appellant refused to register the case while he was present at the Police Station. He has prayed that the appeal be dismissed as it had no force. 7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have carefully taken into consideration the two Rapats which in fact are sheet anchor of the appellant's case. According to these Rapats the appellant left Police Station on 3rd May, 1982 at 6 p. m. for patrol duty and returned on 4th May, 1982 at 4 p. m. According to third Rapat the appellant remained only 15 minutes at the Police Station. We have examined these Rapats by summoning the same in order to find whether the observation of the learned S. P. that these Rapats were fake, could be made out or not. The examination of all the 3 Rapats disclosed that three. Rapats were entered in the ordinary course of duty as permitted under the rules and which according to section 114 of the Evidence Act presumption of truth was attached to the same unless the same stands rebutted. We have also perused Annexure `I' F. I. R. registered in respect of the said incident and find that accord ing to the complainant he informed this incident to the Thanedar who further asked his Munshi to verify the fact on the spot before actual registration of the said case. The appellant has taken a place that at the said time in his absence A. S. I. was always Incharge of Thana and therefore, the appellant would not be a Thanedar at the relevant time and this reference of the word Thanedar was a reference to the A.S.I. who was acting in his place. It has been further submitted by the appellant that as no enquiry was conducted in this case to establish whether the appellant was Thanedar so referred to in the F. I. R., therefore, in view of Rapats so recorded in the Police Roznamcha the irresistable conclusion would be that the reference of the word Thanedar would not be a reference to his person. We have examined this point so raised by the appellant and are fully in accord with his plea particularly when we find nothing wrong with the Rapats in order to shake the credibility of the same that in‑fact that any person holding the charge of Police Station at the relevant time, would be considered a Thanedar as far as the information was concerned. The crucial point in this case would be whether to believe the Rapats so recorded in Police Roznamcha or to accept the version of the learned S.P. that infact it was the appellant who was on duty at that particular time and he has manoeuvred to create evidence in his favour by incorporating these three Rapats. If there would have been a regular enquiry in this case, this matter would have come to light but at the present there is nothing on the record either in the form of documentary evidence or by oral evidence that these three Rapats were in fact maneouvered by the appellant, therefore, we have no other alternative but to accept the documentary evidence against the said charge. If the learned S. P. was 100 % sure that the appellant had created three fake Rapats, he should have pro ceeded to establish this charge against him also, and if it was so proved the penalty would have been nothing less than dismissal from service. The mere fact that the learned S. P. did not go into the authenticity of these three Rapats and only surmised that this was not good defence in favour of the appellant, would not have forfeited one year's approved service permanently, which infact is not very heavy penalty vis‑a‑vis charge so levelled against him for fabrication of evidence in his favour by creating documentary evidence of the types so created by him, by making entries in Roznamcha. It seems that these points have not been taken into consideration by the learned D.I.‑G. Police, Lahore Range, by rejecting his appeal as he failed to discuss all these points which the appellant did raise in representation so filed before him. The order is very short and only contains the charge‑sheet and final rejection of the appellant's representation without discussing the defence so raised by him. 8. The result is we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore his one year's approved service so forfeited permanently by respondents. There will be no order as to costs. A. E. Appeal accepted.