2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JUSTICE (RETD.) RUSTAM ALI MALIK (CHAIRMAN).

The brief facts of this case are that the appellant was working as Sub-Inspector, Traffic Police in District Sheikhupura/Incharge Mobile Highway-IV (Sargodha Road) Sheikhupura when he was placed under suspension by respondent No. l. A fact-finding inquiry was conducted and later he was served with a show-cause notice dated 26-10-2004 by respondent No.1 containing different allegations. The appellant submitted written reply to the show-cause notice, denying the allegations levelled therein. He was called in Orderly Room on 4-11-2004 by respondent No.1 and was personally heard. However, as his explanation and reply were not found satisfactory, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order on 5-11-2004, whereby major penalty of reduction in rank from Sub-Inspector to Assistant Sub-Inspector was awarded to him. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the appellant filed a departmental appeal before respondent No.2 on 20-11-2004. Respondent No.2 got conduced an inquiry in the matter and appointed Mr. Iftikhar-ul-Haq, ADIG Traffic as Inquiry Officer, who after conducting the inquiry, submitted the report to him. However, respondent No.2 i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Traffic, Punjab observed that the inquiry conducted by the ADIG is superficial and that he had not applied his mind, hence he proceeded to dismiss the appeal vide his order dated 30-5-2005. Aggrieved of the said order, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

2. I have heard the arguments from both sides. The allegations levelled against the appellant was that on 14-10-2004 Muhammad Ashraf, the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Punjab while coming from Sargodha to Lahore, found the appellant at Sargodha Road, chasing a truck on Highway Mobile. He was called by him and asked about his duties. The Challan Book was also examined by the S.S.P. and it was found that he had not mentioned therein the time while challaning the vehicles. Two challan tickets No.37 and 38 of motor vehicles were found to be undelivered and the same existed in Challan Book No.40726 and which indicated that he had received the amount of fine from the violators. A hard paper was also found in the Challan Book, mentioning therein the numbers of as many as 13 different vehicles, regarding receiving or not receiving "numbers" from the drivers of the aforesaid vehicles and which indicated that he was involved in corruption. Shabbir Ahmad Constable was not found to be performing his duties with the appellant, but he had not recorded any report in the ' Roznamcha' about his absence. On the aforesaid allegations, he was placed under suspension. He was also alleged to have attempted to exert extra-departmental influence from different quarters on the S.S.P. and which was also against the manners of a disciplined force.

3. The S.S.P. got conducted a preliminary inquiry through Muhammad Sarwar, Sub-Inspector/Personal Staff Officer to the S.S.P. and during the inquiry proceedings, the allegations against him were substantiated. It was then that the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant by the S.S.P. and after obtaining his reply, he passed the impugned order on 5-11-2004 whereby major penalty of reduction in rank from Sub-Inspector to Assistant Sub-Inspectors was imposed on him with immediate effect under the provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The appellant filed an appeal before respondent No.2 and which was dismissed by him on 30-5-2005, as mentioned above.

4. Admittedly in this case, no regular inquiry was got conducted against the appellant on the charges mentioned above. It was the S.S.P./ respondent No. l, who had caught the appellant while he was pursuing a truck on highway mobile, and later it was he i.e. the S.S.P. who himself issued a show-cause notice to him and thereafter awarded him major A penalty of reduction in rank from Sub-Inspector to A.S.-I. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Province of Punjab through Secretary Home Department, Lahore and others v. Malik Mukhtar Ahmad (Retired A.S.-I. (1989 SCMR 551) that where the Superintendent of Police had himself recovered from the respondent the amount of illegal gratification, which latter had extorted from truck drivers, issued to him show-cause notice, heard him and dismissed him from service and where the Service Tribunal had ordered reinstatement of respondent on the ground that punishing Authority had violated the principles of natural justice as 'Authority' itself was the most important witness, prosecutor and Judge, the consideration of case by two departmental appellate authorities subsequently would not cure jurisdictional defect in the order passed by biased punishing Authority, thereby rendering all consequential proceedings void and of no effect.

5. It is now well-settled that before imposing a major penalty on a civil servant, a regular inquiry is to be conducted into the matter. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and another v. Noor Jamal, Ex-Executive Engineer (2004 SCMR 294)' that in case of awarding a major penalty; a proper inquiry was to be conducted in accordance with the rules wherein a delinquent officer was to be provided an opportunity of defence and personal hearing after issuing him show-cause notice and obtaining his reply thereto and if the charges were proved in the regular inquiry, he was to be penalized. Similar view was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in 'Inspector General of Poflice, Police Headquarters Office, Karachi and 2 others v. Shafqat Mehmood (2003 SCMR 207) Ghazanfar Hussain Changezi v. Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others (2004 SCMR 1476) and Alamgir v. Divisional Forest Officer, Multan and others (1993 SCMR 603).

6. In view of the aforesaid authorities, it is evident that as no regular inquiry under the rules was held against the appellant before imposing on him the major penalty of reduction in rank from Sub-Inspector to Assistant Sub-Inspector, and as the S.S.P. who was himself the most important witness, prosecutor and Judge in this case, subsequent decision of the departmental appeal by respondent No.2 after getting conducted an inquiry by another Police Officer, would not cure jurisdictional defect in the order passed by the punishing Authority.

7. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned orders cannot be legally sustained and are liable to be set aside. Hence this appeal is accepted, the impugned orders dated 5-11-2004 and 30-5-2005 passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively are set aside and the case is remanded to respondent No.1 with the direction to direct a regular inquiry against the appellant under the rules and to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. H.B.T./65/PST Appeal accepted.