1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 10th October, 1990. MUHAMMAD MEHMOOD ASLAM PIRZADA (CHAIRMAN).-- Mukhtar Hussain, A.S.I. has filed this appeal under section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned orders dated 21-7-1988 and 14-9-1989 passed by the respondents. The appellant has impleaded the D.I: G., Police, Bahawalpur Range, Bahawalpur and Superintendent of Police, Bahawalpur as respondents. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that impugned orders passed by the respondents be set aside. Salient features of this appeal are that the appellant was served with show-cause notice on the charge that on 23-3-1988, while on duty in `Jumma Bazar' he got Bashir Ahmad Shopkeeper beaten by his subordinate constables. The said Bashir Ahmad was not only beaten but was also forcibly dragged to Police Station Civil Lines where the appellant recorded an incorrect report dated 25-3-1988. Appellant submitted his explanation in reply to the show-cause notice and a regular enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer found him guilty. Appellant was given personal he; ring and respondent No.2 (authority) vide his impugned order dated 21-7-1988 awarded him the penalty of stoppage of increment for 3 years. The appellant filed an appeal before respondent. No.l which was rejected vide impugned order dated 14-9-1989. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with the assistance of the representatives of department with care. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that although general proceedings were initiated in this case yet neither the appellant was charge-sheeted nor any opportunity of defence was afforded to him and as such the entire proceedings were illegal. Reliance was placed by him on the impugned orders dated 21-7-1988 passed by respondent No. 2 wherein it has expressly been mentioned that the D.S.P. (Legal) had held a regular enquiry in the matter but the appellant was not associated with it. The learned counsel further stated that a copy of the enquiry report was also not supplied to the appellant, which has prejudiced him in the defence of his case. He therefore, concluded that these material deficiencies have rendered the enquiry proceedings invalid. He further submitted that the punishment of stoppage of annual increments was also illegal because it cannot be imposed with cumulative effect. The learned District Attorney vehemently opposed the above contentions and argued that the impugned orders passed by respondents in the light of comments/report furnished on behalf of respondents be allowed to stand. We have given our anxious thought to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and find that no regular enquiry was actually conducted by the D.S.P. (Legal). In fact, this enquiry was in nature of a preliminary investigation in which it was not incumbent on the Investigating Officer i.e. D.S.P.(Legal) to associate the appellant with the proceedings Resultantly, there was no occasion and the authority was under no obligation to supply a copy of the enquiry report to the appellant. However, we find that the authority while passing the orders imposing the penalty on the appellant has' stated in so many words that the "DSP (Legal) was to hold a regular enquiry. The Enquiry Officer DSP(Legal) submitted his findings report on 28-3-1988 which he found guilty him". Since the decision of the authority/respondent No.2 is based on an assumption which is factually incorrect, the entire proceedings have therefore, been rendered invalid. Further the punishment awarded by the authority is also illegal because increments cannot be stopped with cumulative effect as no such punishment is provided in the E & D Rules. The increments can only be stopped without cumulative effect. In view of the deficiencies in the impugned order dated 25-6-1988 of the No.2 discussed above, we accept the appeal, set aside the, impugned orders and remand the case to the authority to pass orders afresh in accordance with law. There are no orders as to costs. M.Y.H./329/Sr.P Case remanded.