1979 PLP 72 (PLC(CS))

(13) Constable Ali Ahmed No. 1082; (14) Constable Jamshed Ali No.

529. All the above mentioned 17 Officers and men with the common object of defying lawful orders of transfer resorted to protest and strike. They also incited the police within the District and outside Sahiwal District to go on strike in sympathy with them. They (with S.

1. Ghulam Hussain as their leader) in furtherance of their common object committed the following acts of grave misconduct and subversive ' activity during the night intervening 7/8‑3‑76 (i) Against the discipline of the force and custom of the service all the 17 Officers and men went on illegal strike. They swore on Holy Qur'an to stand by each other. (ii) As a result of strike, the lawful order of transfer of S. I. Ghulam 100 Hussain from Police Station 'A' Division was defied and S.1. Abdul Khaliq was not allowed to take charge. (iii) The main gate of the Police Station was locked from inside thereby refusing entry to every one including the Supervisory Officer D. S. P. Headquarters, who bad gone there to find out the situation. (iv) Black flag was hoisted/placed on the top of the Police Station building. Different slogans were also raised within the Police Station building in an in disciplined manner. (v) Hand‑written posters were splashed on the walls in City Sahiwal that Sahiwal Police had gone on strike. (vi) Telegrams carrying information that Sahiwal Police had gone on strike were transmitted to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Chief Minister Punjab, Inspector‑General of Police Punjab, Commissioner, Multan, Division and the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range Multan. (vil) Trunk calls were booked from Telephone No. SWL‑2726 of P. S. 'A' Division for Police Stations within the District and Police Lines of outside District and the recipients of the calls were incited to strike on the plea that Sahiwal Police had gone on strike because of humiliation by the District Chairman of the P. P. P., Sahiwal and they stood in need of their support. The official telephone was thus misused to induce them to support by participating in the activities of going on strike. (viii) Telephone Trunk Calls were also booked from Telephone No. SWL 2726 for Chief Minister Commissioner, Multan Division and other Senior Officers of Police Department. The official telephone was thus misused. (ix) On 8‑3‑76, all out efforts were made to pacify the passions and to quell their strike but they continued their prejudicial activity clandes tinely. Hence they were dislodged from the places of their postings."

4. It is common ground that the penal order was passed against the ,,ppellants without the formality of show‑cause notice or departmental enquiry under rule 10 (b) of the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975.

5. A preliminary objection with regard to the limitation was raised by the Government Pleader. According to him the appeals were dismissed by the D. I.‑G. Police on 1‑7‑76 and limitation as prescribed in section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 started running against the appellants from that date There being no provision for a revision in rule 14 of the aforesaid E & D Rules, which specifically stipulates that‑ "There shall be one appeal only from the original order, and the order of the appellate authority shall be final." The appellants are not entitled to the benefit of their revision petitions to the I.‑G. Police towards limitation. According to the learned counsel the appeals filed in this Tribunal on 3‑11‑1976 (in case at Serial Nos. 1 to 4 above) and 29‑10‑1976 (in case of Serial No. 5 above) are thus barred by time as the limitation of 30 days computed from. 1‑7‑1976 expired on 30‑7‑1976. On the direction of this Tribunal an application for condonation of delay has been filed on behalf of the appellants in which the plea of bona fide mistake in preferring a revision before the I.‑G. Police has been taken. It is argued before us that filing of such revision/mercy petition has been in vogue in the Police Department since long past and it was under the same make impression that the appellants also filed revision petitions before the I.G. Police considering it a bona fide departmental remedy. In the circumstances of the case, we consider the explanation reasonable and condone the delay.

6. In the first place it is vehemently argued on behalf of the appellants that they have been a victim of excesses of the office bearers of the People's Party. It is averred that Askari Hassan. Chairman, P. P. P. Sahiwal District who is the central figure in this episode is the first cousin of Dr. Mubashir Hassan, the latter at that time was a Federal Minister and a prominent and active member of the P. P. P. and was also holding the officer of Secretary General of the Party. It is submitted that Babar Iqbal who was arrested on 6‑3‑1876 on the orders of the D. S. P. was required in various car thefts in connection with F. I. R. No. 11/76 of P. S. 'A' Division, Sahiwal. As to his credentials it is submitted that even now he has been rounded up in a case of car lifting in support of which a copy of an F. .1. R. has been placed on record. According to the appellants said Askari Hassan was indignant at the arrest of said Babar lqbal as he was his political supporter. He came to the Police Station and hurled abuses and insults at the entire staff of the Police Station and even man‑handled a constable in uniform. In the same strain it is alleged that Askari Hassan made false reports to the Senior Police/Civil Officers against the appellants and due to his political position and influence was able to overawe the Senior Police/ Civil Officers, resulting in the impugned action against them. Each appellant has individually totally denied the allegations of strike or looking up of the Police Station or any of the acts of misdemeanour or indiscipline alleged against them in the impugned order. It is submitted that nothing has been brought on record in support of the allegations of hoisting of black tig over the Police Station or sending out telegrams to the higher authorities or making trunk calls from the telephone of the Police Station for inciting other units of the force to join the strike. According to the learned counsel for the appellants photographs of the Police Station with black flag could have been produced which has not been done. Similarly, the telegrams said to have been transmitted by the appellants could have been brought on record and even the record with respect to the allegation of making trunk calls from the Police Station which was easily procurable from the telephone Department has not been produced.

6. It is also vehemently argued on behalf of the appellants that the circumstances of the case did not warrant recourse to rule 10 (b) of the E & D Rules. There was no impediment in the way of the authority to follow the regular course of service of show cause and Departmental Enquiry. 7. 1t is contended in the first place that the plea that assembly of all the accused at Sahiwal from out stations was in any way fraught with the possibility of causing unrest and indiscipline in the police force was totally unfounded and imaginary. Similarly, it is argued that it was not necessary for the purpose of enquiry and for providing opportunity to show cause to assemble all the accused persons at one time at Sahiwal. If the authorities had some apprehensions as expressed by them, the enquiry could be phased out in point of time. Alternatively it is submitted that the enquiry could be conducted at different stations without having to assemble all the accused at one place. Thus it is argued that the plea for depriving the officials of due opportunity to show cause is totally baseless and mala fide. According to them, the summary procedure under rule 10 (b) of the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules was merely pressed into service in a males fide manner to pacify the wrath of aforesaid Askari Hasan. Lastly, it is submitted that out of 17 persons proceeded against under the impugned order, seven constables who sought the remedy in the Punjab Review Board No. II have been re‑instated in service by the M. L. A. Punjab. In support of this contention, an affidavit and photostat copies of the re‑instatement orders of five constable have been placed on record. Appellants seek similar treatment on the ground that the charge and the impugned orders are identical.

8. We have heard the parties at length. We have observed that all the appellants in their appeals submitted to the D. I: G., Police have spoken about the unrest caused in the Police Station due to the incident of Hasan Askari and the consequent transfer to the lines of S. I. Ghulam Hussain and it is mentioned that there was resistance on the part of S. I. Ghulam Hussain in handing over charge to his successor Abdul Khaliq in which some members of the force bad supported the said S. I. In the first instance ex‑A. S. I. Muhammad Munawar, in his appeal states‑ "I also came to know about the evil designs of S. I. Ghulam Hussain, who wanted to flout the order of the superiors and defy his transfer but as an experienced Police Officer I persuaded him to obey the orders of the superiors and after complying with the same to lay his grievance if any before the executive police head of the District but he got annoyed and labelled me as chicken hearted and coward." Similarly ex‑A. S. I. Azizud Din states that after mid‑night on the night between 7th and $th March, 1976, a constable woke him up and told that at about 10‑30 p.m. a telephonic call was received on behalf of the S. P. to the effect that S. I. Ghulam Hussain was transferred to the lines with immediate effect and that the said S. I. had protested against his transfer with the help of few constables. Muhammad Anwar Khan, ex‑A. S. I. had this to say in this connection "....I came to know about the posting of S. I. Abdul Khaliq as S. H. O. Police Station, `A'‑Division, Sahiwal. It also came to my knowledge that the former S. H. O., S. I. Ghulam Hussain was reluctant to make over the charge. I also went to the Police Station and persuaded S. I. Ghulam Hussain to honour the lawful order of the worthy S. P. but he was not agreeable Ex‑A. S.

1. Muhammad Khan in his turn stated that‑ "after coming to know of the illegal designs of S. I. Ghulam Hussain. I instructed my staff not to indulge in the uncalled for activities and as a result thereof none from my police party got themselves involved in the alleged strike except Zahid Ali, Constable No. 355 ." It is, therefore, futile on the part of the appellants to totally deny the incident of unrest or defiance of authority in the Police Station at the relevant time. We also cannot believe that the senior hierarchy of police had made out completely fabricated case of such a serious nature against their own subordinates. Under the circumstances, then prevailing the authorities according to their judgment considered it expedient to have recourse to the provision of rule 10 (b) of the Police (E & D) Rules, 1975, which rule may be reproduced below:‑ "Nothing in rules 6, 7 and 9 shall apply in a case‑ (a) (b) where the authority competent to impose a 'major punishment is satisfied that, for reasons to be recorded in writing by that authority, it is not reasonably practicable to give the accused an opportunity of showing cause." It may be observed that rules 6, 7 and 9 mentioned above relate to punish ment proceedings, procedure to be observed by the Enquiry Officer and Special Police proceedings, which entail opportunity to show cause and enquiry. The justification of having recourse to the procedure laid down in rule 10 (b) aforesaid is provided in the impugned order of S. P. Sahiwal as under:‑ "Their assembly from out stations at Sahiwal is fraught with dangerous implication in terms of eroding the discipline of the Police Force and is bound to fan the fire of strike. As the accused Police Officers are committed on the Holy Qur'an to make their design of strike to success and they are capable of engineering false alarms to engender provocation in the Force in order to enlist support, I am, therefore, satisfied that it is not reasonable and practicable to give an opportunity to them to show cause. Hence, in consonance with the provisions of rule 10 (b) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 strikers are dismissed from the Police Force with immediate effect."

9. Under the circumstances of the case, we feel there is touch weight in the grounds for pressing into service the procedure laid down in rule 10 (b) aforesaid. The anxiety of the superior authorities to guard against the possibility of spread of contagion of unrest and defiance of authority in rest of the force appears to be well founded. The competent authority thus followed a permissible course of action under the rules and we find violation of rules in the procedure. Each appellant, in his appeal to the D. I.‑G., Police, Multan Range had advanced his own plea to plead hi innocence or non‑participation in the alleged incidents of mutiny and defiant. Since all the appellants were individually heard by the D. I.‑G. (and there is no contention to the contrary) before passing the appellate order rejecting appeals, we feel the ends of justice have been substantially met in this case. We may also observe that if the appellants had any real or imaginary grievance arising out of the incidents of alleged highhandedness on the part of Askari Hassan, they being members of a disciplined force should have exercised restraint and bad recourse to legitimate means of ventilating their grievances. Instead they took law into their own hands resulting in grievous injury to the institution of the police force as a whole. The appellants thus had to face the consequences of their own acts. The upshot of above discussion is that the five appeals have no merit and are dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Counsel of the parties be informed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.