1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).‑Messrs Muhammad Akram and Mushtaq Ali ex‑Constables, Police Department, have made these appeals to, the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, wherein they have impleaded the Superintendent of Police, City Division, Lahore, Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore, and the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. Since the impugned orders passed by the respondents relate to one and the same incident of identical nature and these appeals also involve common points of law and facts, as such these appeals are being disposed of by a single judgment.

3. By virtue of these appeals they have prayed that the impugned orders dated 11‑12‑1980 by which they have been dismissed from service be set aside, being illegal, without jurisdiction and inoperative.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants, Muhammad Akram and Mushtaq Ali ex‑Constable of Police Department, on 2‑11‑1980 at about 8 p.m., visited the house of Mr. Saeed Ahmad in plain clothes and called him out. Mr. Saeed Ahmad came 'out of his house and the appellants asked him to accompany them to the Police Station as he had been running a gambling den. They also demanded illegal gratification from him. On the protest of Mr. Saeed Ahmad the appellants grappled and broke one of his teeth. Mr. Saeed Ahmad reported the matter at the Police Station Misri Shah and report was recorded in the daily dairy. The com plainant (Mr. Saeed Ahmad) was got medically examined and on receipt of medical report, case F. I. R. No. 582 dated 3‑11‑1980 under section 335/34, P. P. C., at P. S. Misri Shah was registered and the appellants were challaned. The appellants were served with a show‑cause notice and were heard in person by the S. P. City Division, Lahore. The explanations tendered by the appellants were not considered satisfactory. As such, they were dismissed from service w.e.f. 11‑12‑1980. The appellants filed an appeal against this order to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Lahore, Range, Lahore. At the time of personal hearing the appellants had taken a plea that they were acquitted by the Court and the punishment thus awarded to them was uncalled for. After personal hearing the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore, rejected their appeals on 26‑4‑1981. The appellants filed revision/mercy petitions to the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, which too were rejected ride order dated 4‑4‑1982 and 5‑1‑1982 in case of appellants Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad and Mr. Muhammad Akram, respectively. Hence these appeals.

5. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants were dismissed from service on the charge of corruption which is clear from the show‑cause notice served to the appellants and also the impugned orders of their dismissal dated 11‑12‑1980 passed by the Superintendent of Police, City Division, Lahore. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Punjab Service Tribunal has already held in so many cases that in case of charges of corruption, holding of departmental enquiry was a must and only service of show‑cause notice to a civil servant under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, would not meet ends of the justice. In the present particular cases, the appellants were served with show‑cause notices wherein they were charged for demanding of illegal gratification; and these charges being of corruption, an enquiry should have been held against them. As this was not done, thus, they have been dismissed from service without proving the charges against them and their dismissal orders are unlawful, void ab initio and not operative.

6. Controverting these arguments the learned District Attorney sub mitted that as the charges stood established against the appellants as is clear from the contents of the impugned orders, hence, there was no necessity of holding the regular enquiry and the impugned orders of their dismissal passed are perfectly lawful and were passed after the charges were proved against the appellants and they were found guilty of misconduct.

7. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties. We have already held in our earlier judgments that the dispensing of regular enquiry on the allegation of corruption is unjustified and re sorting to the procedure of show‑cause notice would be an arbitrary exercise of discretion vested in the competent authority under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. In a case, involving charge of corruption, it was incumbent for the competent authority to conduct regular enquiry to meet the ends of justice, A reference be made to detail judgment already given by the Punjab Service Tribunal in Case No. 564(1484 of 1981, Khalid Masood v. Superintendent of Police, Sadar Division, Lahore, and three others where it has been held that in case of a civil servant who is proceeded against, on the charge of corruption, it is incumbent for the competent authority to conduct a regular enquiry.

8. Keeping the above analysis in view, the impugned orders are set aside and the cases of Mr. Muhammad Akram and Mushtaq Ali ex‑Constables are remanded to the competent authority for proceeding in accordance with the law as indicated above. The appellants will be re instated in service to bestow upon them, the status of a civil servant for proceeding afresh against them by the competent authority. However, the period from the dates of their dismissal to that of the dates of their re‑instatement will be treated as extraordinary leave, without pay. There will be no orders with regard to costs. Appeal accepted.