2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

K.B. ABID (MEMBER-II).

Facts leading to filing of this service appeal are that the appellant Ex-Constable Ghulam Jafar No.1536/87 was served Show-Cause Notice No.260/PA, dated 12-6-2004 containing the following charges:

"That one Tanzeel Nazim resident of Chak No.46/NB submitted an application to the Additional Director, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha containing allegations of corruption against him. The Additional Director, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha Region sent the said complaint to the D.P.O. Sargodha for enquiry vide memo. No.ACE-SR-2004/141, dated 7-5-2004. Consequently, the matter was got enquired into through D.S.P., HQrs. Sargodha. During enquiry proceedings it revealed that he accepted Rs.6,000 as illegal gratification from the applicant in connection with investigation of case F.I.R. No.338 of 2003 under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. Police Station Urban Area Sargodha."

2. The appellant submitted reply to the show-cause notice and claimed that he is not guilty of the misconduct as stated in show-cause notice. False complaint was made by one Tanzil Nazim before the Additional Director Anti-Corruption Sargodha levelling false allegation of receipt of Rs.6,000 as illegal gratification from him. The said complaint was investigated through the enquiry by D.S.P. Headquarter, Sargodha who had taken ex parte proceedings against the appellant and not informed the appellant about this enquiry. The Competent Authority summoned the appellant for personal hearing on 28-2-2005. The appellant had not appeared before the authority on due date and time. After taking into consideration the relevant record as well as written reply of the appellant, it was observed that the charge against the appellant is proved. Appellant was dismissed from service by taking ex parte decision. Departmental appeal was filed before the D.I.-G. Traffic Police Sargodha which was rejected on 9-9-2005.

3. Aggrieved by the orders of the departmental authority the service appeal has been filed in Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore.

4. Counsel for the appellant has pleaded that the appellant was not given opportunity to cross-examine with the complainant. The Enquiry Officer had conducted the proceedings. in a slipshod manner. In order to meet the ends of justice, it was necessary to hold regular enquiry under . R.S.O. 2000 instead of fact finding enquiry. This fact had been brought to the notice of the appellate authority but it was not accepted. As pointed out by the counsel Tanzil Nazim is clever person and had been convicted in F.I.R. No.328 of 2003 under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. It is clear from the conviction given to the complainant that he had bad reputation.

5. Respondents and District Attorney have opposed and stated that the departmental proceedings were taken on the complaint of Mr. Tanzil Nazim. The appellant was called in the Orderly Room for personal hearing but he deliberately avoided appearing in the Orderly Room. Hence, action was taken against the appellant in absentia. The misconduct committed by the appellant was proved by the D.S.P. Headquarter.

6. The appellant in reply to the show-cause notice has denied the complaint lodged against him. The complaint was regarding corruption and receiving of Rs.6,000 as illegal gratification in connection with the investigation of case F.I.R. No.338 of 2003. The charges should have been probed through regular enquiry. The appellant himself has not availed the opportunity of personal hearing and defence before the competent authority. From this, it is concluded that the charge of illegal gratification has some weight and the departmental authorities had concrete evidences against him. Penalty awarded to the appellant is too harsh. It is converted into reduction of pay into one lower stage in time scale. Appellant is reinstated into service. The intervening period will be treated as leave of the kind due. H.B.T./31/PST???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.