1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Ghulam Nabi, Sub Inspector No.118/F, Police Station, Civil Lines, Faisalabad, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974, wherein he has impleaded the respondents mentioned above.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders dated 5‑9‑1982, 24‑10‑1983 and final order dated 23‑4‑1984/14‑5‑1984 be set aside and his one year's approved service be restored with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 2‑11‑1981, one Kazim s/o Shera caste Sadhu r/o Chak No.127, P.S. Chiniot submitted application to the Superintendent of Police, Jhang that the appellant alongwith other Constables apprehended his brother Muhammad Ali and demanded illegal gratification which Kazim Ali could not pay. Muhammad Ali and other accused were challaned who were innocent. The appellant raided his house after 3/4 days again. Kazim Ali paid Rs.1,000 as illegal gratification to the appellant. The second application dated 7‑1‑1982 was submitted by Dilmir Khan s/o Mohabat Khan caste Sadhu r/o Chak No.127 P.S. Chiniot to the effect that on 10‑12‑1981, the appellant and Mansabdar, Constable came to the house and took away the Recorder, Battery of Suzuki and Rs.4,

200. Also they threatened Dilmir Khan to keep silent otherwise he would be challaned. A show‑cause notice was served upon the appellant by the Superintendent of Police, Jhang dated 17‑4‑1982. The appellant submitted his reply to the show‑cause notice. Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Marth, Enquiry Officer, the then ASP/Hqrs, Jhang conducted the preliminary enquiry and submitted the same on 4‑3‑1982 to the Superintendent of Police, Jhang. A second report was submitted by the ASP/ Hqrs. on 6‑6‑1982. The Superintendent of Police, Jhang considered the above both reports, reply of the show‑cause notice of the appellant and found the appellant guilty of the charge of corruption anal punished him with forfeiture of one year's approved service with permanent effect vide his order dated 5‑9‑1982. The appellant made an appeal to the Deputy Inspector- General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad which was rejected vide order dated 24‑10‑1983. The appellant made revision petition to the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore which was rejected vide order dated 23‑4‑1984. 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 submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is clear from the parawise comments submitted by the respondents that Muhammad Ashraf Marth, the then ASP/Hqs. Jhang conducted a preliminary enquiry. The A.S.P. in his report dated 4‑3‑1982'did not prove the corruption charges against the appellant but the Superintendent of Police, Jhang did not agree with it and ordered further probe into the matter. The appellant has been punished on the second report dated 6‑6‑1982 of the ASP/Hqs. in which he had reported that the charge of corruption against the appellant was proved even though the witnesses had resiled and negated the application. Thus, the appellant has been punished on the 2nd report which was contradictory to the original preliminary report of the ASP/Hqs. dated 4‑3‑1982, was also a vague one as the A$P/Hqs. in his 2nd report, dated 6‑fi‑1982, had himself mentioned that the witnesses had resiled and negated the application. It has further been argued with the earlier report of ASP/Hqs, Jhang, was more reliable because it was concluded, after obtaining the statements of the various witnesses including Vice Chairman of the Union Council. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been punished without his fault, as he was not involved in the so called corruption charge.

6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and has submitted that the second report of the ASP/Hqs, had fully proved that the appellant was guilty of corruption/ misconduct, thus, he has been punished correctly and no exception can be taken against the impugned orders which are valid orders.

7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case. It is clear from the record of 'this case that the appellant was served with at show‑cause notice though the appellant was involved in a corruption case. The impugned orders dated 5‑9‑1982 of the Superintendent of Police, Jhang also mentions in Para

2. The glaring case of misconduct did not warrant the initiation of departmental proceedings. through an enquiry officer. Therefore, it was decided to take disciplinary action against them by issuing show‑cause notice as required by Rule 3(b) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The above fact shows that no regular enquiry was held against the appellant but he was proceeded against on the basis of charge of corruption. Two preliminary enquiries were held against the appellant as mentioned in the parawise comments filed by the respondents which are reproduced as follows: ‑ The defaulter was served with a show‑cause notice. Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Marth, the then ASP/HQs, Jhang conducted preliminary enquiry. The ASP in his report dated 4‑3‑1982 mentioned that charge of corruption not proved but S.P. did not agree with it and ordered further probe into the matter. In _his second report dated 6‑6‑1982, the ASP/Hqs has written that charge of corruption against SI Ghulam Nabi is proved even though the witnesses have resiled and negated the application. " The above comments make it clear that no regular enquiry was conducted against the appellant and the appellant has been punished on the basis of the preliminary enquiries. We have already held in a number of cases relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as P L D 1974 S C 393 that in a corruption case the regular enquiry is must so that the appellant could avail an opportunity to produce the evidence, witnesses etc. to defend himself. I further find that a regular enquiry was absolute necessary in this case to find out the truth in view of the fact that the first enquiry report dated 4‑3‑1982 of the then ASP/Hqs, Jhang did not hold the appellant guilty of the charge. Even the 2nd report dated 6‑6‑1982 of the ASP/Hqs was contradictory, as he had mentioned that the charge of corruption was proved even though the witnesses have and negated the application.

8. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the appeal is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the Superintendent of Police, Jhang, to proceed afresh against the appellant by conducting a regular enquiry in view of the settled law mentioned above. There are no orders at to costs. A.E./181/S.Tr Appeal accepted.