1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

A . G . Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents. Muhammad Ashraf, ASI No.242/S, Police Station Peoples Colony, Faisalabad has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the respondent mentioned above.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that impugned orders dated 30‑3‑1980, 28‑5‑1980, 14‑4‑1981 and is ‑s0‑11982 be set aside. He be reinstated as Sub‑Inspector w.e.f.26-3-1980 and two years approved service be restored.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant remained posted at P.S. Jaranwala in 1979. He investigated case FIR No.359, dated 29‑8‑1979 u/s. 6 (Enforcement of Zina Hudood Ordinance 1979) registered on the statement of Mst. Iqbal Bibi d/o Hassan Muhammad No Chak No.648/GB. The appellant conducted investigation from 29‑8‑1979 to 27‑9‑1979 when he proceeded to undergo Upper School Course at Police College, Sihala. During his investigation, he almost concluded that the case was false. He protracted the finalization of the case for want of the report of Chemical Examiner. The appellant came in to adverse notice when the investigation was conducted by Ch. Bashir Ahmad the then DSP/Jaranwala on 2‑2‑1980. Mst. Iqbal Bibi prosecutrix, her father Hassan Muhammad and all the three eye‑witnesses supported the version of FIR and stated that Gulzar accused had committed the crime. The report of the Chemical Examiner, Lahore was received in the positive and the accused was challaned to court. The DSP concluded that the appellant had himself obtained thumb‑impressions of the witnesses on the affidavits showing compromise between the parties. He had thus, intentionally and with ulterior motive spoiled the investigation of the crime of a heinous nature in which the accused had raped a girl 14 years of age. The appellant was reverted from his officiating rank to that of ASI vide order dated 30‑3‑1980. He was, further, served with a show‑cause notice (details at Annexure 'C'). The appellant submitted a reply to the show‑cause notice in which he denied the allegations. However, the explanation of the appellant was considered unsatisfactory by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad and punished him by forfeiture of his two years approved service with permanent effect vide his order dated 28‑5‑1980. The appellant made an appeal to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha which was considered and rejected vide his order dated 14‑4‑1980. The appellant made a revision petition before the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore which was also rejected vide his order dated 20‑10‑1982. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties i.e., Mr. Masud Ahmad Riaz, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents, on behalf of the respondents.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was reverted from the post of SI to ASI vide order dated 30‑3‑1980 (Annexure 'B'). This reversion of the appellant was due to specific allegations of misconduct. Therefore, it was not a simple reversion but it amounted to reduction in rank. Accordingly in view of the latest ruling of Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as P L D 1983 SC Page 100 as well as the Judgment of this Honourable Tribunal it was not open to the respondent No.l to avoid compliance of the mandatory provisions of Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. As specific allegations had been levelled, it was obligatory upon the respondent NO‑1 to initiate full-fledged departmental proceedings under Efficiency and Discipline Rules. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that, thus, the appellant has been reverted without observing any formalities and without giving him the chance to defend himself. Hence, the appellant's reversion is illegal and cannot be sustained. Furthermore, the facts of the case were of such a complicated and complexed nature that it was necessary, in order to arrive at correct and definite conclusion, to hold a full-fledged enquiry. However, the competent authority did not even pass any order to dispense with the enquiry. Consequently, the adoption of summary procedure was quite inappropriate and was not in the interest of justice or befitted to the facts of the case. Furthermore, the respondents have not taken due notice of the crucial documentary evidence in the shape of affidavits and certificates and has failed to apply their conscious mind. Consequently, the impugned orders have been passed arbitrarily without proving the charge.

6. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has submitted that the reversion of the appellant from SI to ASI is not a penalty, as reversion from the Officiating rank to the substantive rank can be made at any time by the competent authority if the work of a Police Official is found unsatisfactory. He has also submitted that sufficient documentary evidence against the appellant was available on record in this case, hence there was no necessity of having full-fledged enquiry. The misconduct stood proved against the appellant from the documents on record, therefore, the appellant has been punished correctly and no exception can be taken against the impugned orders which are valid and proper orders. The learned District Attorney has, also relied upon the detailed parawise comments submitted by the respondents in this appeal.

7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and find that the appellant has been reverted on the basis of the allegations in connection with the investigation case FIR No.359, dated 29‑8‑1979, u/s 6 Offence of Zina Ordinance of 1979, as is clear from the report of the DSP/SDPO, Jaranwala (Annexure 'A'), impugned order dated 30‑3‑1980 (Annexure 'B'). Thus, there is no denying of the fact that the reversion of the appellant was ordered by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad on specific allegation of misconduct. Hence, the reversion of the appellant from SI to ASI is not a simple reversion due to his unsatisfactory work but this is on the basis of definite allegation and misconduct. I have perused the show‑cause notice and also other relevant record in this case and find that the appellant has been punished correctly by forfeiture of his two years approved service with permanent effect as the appellant had been found guilty of misconduct in investigation of the above mentioned case. However, I find that the appellant could not be given two punishments i.e., reversion from SI to ASI and forfeiture of two years approved service, for the same allegation/ misconduct. This action of the competent authority is not based on the principle of fairplay, equity and justice.

8. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the appellant is restored to the post of the Officiating Sub‑‑Inspector w.e.f. 26‑3‑1980 and the punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service with permanent effect will stand as it is justified. Thus, the impugned orders dated 30‑3‑1980, of respondent No.l, is set aside altogether and the impugned order dated 28‑5‑1980 of respondent No. 1, is modified to the extent that his forfeiture of two years approved service with permanent effect would be in the rank of Officiating Sub‑Inspector. Similarly the appellate orders dated 14‑4‑1981 and 20‑10‑1982 of respondents Nos.2 and 3, respectively, are modified accordingly. A.E./64‑Sr.P Appeal partly accepted.