1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Shah Alam, ex‑Constable No. 2321 of Faisalabad District, has made this appeal under section 40 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha and the Additional Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugn ed order, dated 30th January, 1983 conveyed to the appellant on 4th February, 1983 of respondent No. 1 upholding the orders of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 be set aside and the appellant be ordered to be re‑instated into service with full back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Shah Alam, ex -Constable, was served with a show‑cause notice, dated 4th October, 1981 by Additional Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad (as per Annexure `D‑1'), A reply to the same was submitted by the appellant on 20th October, 1981. The reply to the show‑cause notice was considered by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad He was also heard in person by him on 22nd November, 1981. The appellant was found guilty of the charges. Hence, he was dismissed from service, w. e. f, 22nd November, 1981 vide Additional Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, order, dated 28th November, 1981. The appellant made an appeal to the Deputy Inspector- General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha which was rejected vide order, dated 21st April, 1982. The appellant made a revision petition to the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore which was considered and filed vide his order No. 1861‑63/M‑V, dated 2nd February, 1983. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice having following charges as mentioned in the para. 8 of the appeal which are reproduced as below :‑ "(i) That the appellant bad initiated proceedings under sections 107/151, Cr. P. C. and he entered some reports that Mst. Abida does not want to go with her parents and she apprehends danger at their hands. He produced her before the Ilaqa Magistrate and get her entered in Dar‑ul‑Aman, Faisalabad without the knowledge of these proceedings to Muhammad Idrees, her father. (ii) When in search of Mst. Abida said Muhammad Idrees had been to the house of Muhammad Yousaf his father‑in‑law, it was alleged that the appellant tried to involve him in a theft case of Telephone Wires, confined Muhammad Yousaf and Pervaiz Ahmad in the Police Station and furthermore it was alleged that he released them after taking Rs. 500 as illegal gratification and by this all he helped Muhammad Arif". It has been further pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that both the charges were denied in reply to the show‑cause notice by the appellant as he was innocent and both the charges were false. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was punished arbitrarily, without proving charges against him. This was due to the reason that the appellant was not given opportunity to defend himself. No regular enquiry was conducted in the case though he was also involved in a charge of corruption. Though a preliminary enquiry was held by D. S. P., Headquarters, Faisalabad, but the appellant was not provided an opportunity to defend himself by producing his defence, Also no evidence was produced in his presence, nor he was afforded an opportunity to cross‑examine the witnesses produced in the enquiry. Thus, proceedings and findings of the preliminary enquiry are one‑sided and are not true. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this Tribunal has already held in so many cases, relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan that in a case involving charge of corruption conducting of a regular enquiry is must. Though the appellant was clearly charged for taking Rs. 500 as illegal gratification, even then, no regular enquiry has been held and he has not been afforded opportunities to defend himself. Thus, the punishment awarded to the appellant. has been given without proving the charges against him and the punishment awarded to the appellant is unjustified and unlawful.

5. The learned District Attorney on the other hand has submitted that the charges were proved against the appellant when the preliminary enquiry was conducted by the D. S. P. Headquarters, hence the appellant has correctly been held guilty of misconduct and punishment so awarded to him is in order and lawful.

6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments the parties and have carefully scrutinized the allegations mentioned in the show‑cause notice I have also perused the preliminary enquiry report of D. S. P. Headquarters, Faisalabad. The allegations contained in the show‑cause notice are clearly of such nature that these required a regular enquiry to probe into the matter, especially keeping in view the charge No.

2. It has been alleged in charge No. 2 that the appellant had released the culprits after taking Rs. 500 as illegal gratification. A regular enquiry should have been held against the appellant to give him an opportunity for producing the witnesses m his defence. This Tribunal has already held, relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, reported as 1980 P L C (C. S.) 418, 1980 P L C (C. S.) 611, 1980 P L C (C. S.) 562 and P L D 1974 S C 393 that in cases involving charges of corruption, it is incumbent for the competent authority to hold a regular enquiry. Since the provision of the rules has not been complied with in this case of holding a regular enquiry, hence the impugned orders cannot be sustained. This fact cannot also be ignored that the appellant's counsel has vehemently argued that the appellant has not been provided an opportunity to produce the witnesses even when the preliminary enquiry was held and the appellant has been punished without proving the charges against him.

7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal is accepted. The impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the competent authority i.e. Additional Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad for proceed ing in accordance with the law as indicated above. The appellant is direct ed to be re‑instated in service to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant to enable the authority to proceed against him. The fate of the period for which the appellant remained out of service will also be decided by the competent authority after conducting the proceedings in accordance with the law, as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. M. Y. M. Case remanded.