2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(2) Mr. Ahmad Zaki Tirmizi, D.S.P./Sadar, Gujranwala. (3) Mr. Willayat Hussain Shah, D.S.P./Traffic, Gujranwala. (4) Inspector Shahid Mahboob, S.H.O., Police Station Sadar, Gujranwala.

2. He was found with Mst. Sadia Daughter of Muhammad Khalid, in Room No.2 of the Hotel in objectionable condition, regarding which criminal case F.I.R. No.474 of 1998 under section 10/7/79 H.O. was registered at Police Station Sadar, Gujranwala and he was arrested.

3. Proceedings under Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975, were initiated against the appellant and he was issued show‑cause notice on 4‑5‑1998 on the allegation of presence with the lady in the Hotel and using unregistered inter cooler Pajero. In reply dated 16‑5‑1998 the appellant admitted that inter cooler Pajero was owned by his father and is being used by him. The appellant, however, denied the first allegation and raised the plea that he was taking rest at Sajawal Hotel. When he came out from Hotel, the police party alongwith one lady named Sadia was standing. He was apprehended and was falsely involved in the case under Hudood Ordinance, at the instance of D.S.P., Traffic who had grudge against him. The plea of the appellant was not considered satisfactory and the appellant was dismissed from service by D.I.‑G., Traffic (respondent No. l) vide impugned order dated 17‑7‑1998. The departmental appeal was rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 19‑10‑1999. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, District Attorney and have perused the record and. objections to the memorandum of appeal submitted by the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was acquitted vide order dated 12‑7‑2000 by learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala in case F.I.R. No.474 of 1998 under section 10(2) read with section 18 of the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, Police Station Sadar, Gujranwala, as such, allegation No. l stands rebutted.

6. Learned District Attorney replied that perusal of the judgment dated 12‑7‑2000 of learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala reveals that the appellant was found present in a hotel's room with a woman who was neither his wife nor related to her. This act was considered by the Court as immoral act but he was acquitted because the appellant was not found in objectionable condition and on the basis of negative medical report.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was awarded major punishment without conducting a regular inquiry and without affording him the opportunity to produce his defence.

8. We have considered the arguments advanced by the parties and have perused the record. The appellant in his reply dated 16‑5‑1998 has admitted that he was using unregistered inter‑cooler Pajero owned by his father.

9. The perusal of the judgment dated 12‑7‑2000 of learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala reveals that the appellant was found present in the Hotel's room with the woman who was not related to the appellant. Learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, further held that though it is an immoral act, yet it does not fall within the mischief of any of the penal provisions of Hudood Laws. The immoral act of the appellant being present with a woman who was not related to him, in the room of the ‑hotel is prejudicial to good order of discipline of the police force, unbecoming of a Police Officer and a gentleman and thus amounts to misconduct under rule 2(iii) of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975. The appellant has admitted that he was using unregistered inter‑cooler Pajero owned by his father.

10. Regarding the objections of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was awarded the major punishment without a regular inquiry. The inquiry is conducted in order to prove the guilt or otherwise of a civil servant and to provide him proper opportunity to cross-examine the inquiry witnesses and to produce his defence. He has availed this opportunity, during trial of the case F.I.R. No.474 of 1998 under section 10/7/19 H.O. regarding the same occurrence/allegation. The charge of misconduct has been proved against the appellant.

11. We find no ground to interfere. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./67/PST Appeal dismissed.