1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Masud Ahmad Riaz, Advocate, Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate at length as well as Mr. Hameed Aslam Malik, S.P. Faisalabad, who appeared in person to contest the case on behalf of himself as well as respondent D.I.G. Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad, and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the show cause notice was a stereotyped notice which was served on the appellants on 13‑6‑1983, 22‑6‑1983, 20‑6‑1983 and 28‑6‑1983 respectively and it was indicated in the same that the appellants should give their replies on the same date but in fact practically no time of defence was at all given to the appellants for the aid purpose. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, show‑cause notices were served upon the appellants at 3 p.m. alongwith dismissal order, therefore, according to the learned counsel there was no gap between the show‑cause Notice and dismissal orders. Learned counsel for the appellants have vehemently argued that in fact it was a mockery of the provisions of Rules. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that as many as 33 cases were decided on the same day and dismissed the appellants through a stereotyped orders and without concentrating upon individual cases. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the orders were already signed and delivered to the appellants during the course of personal hearing thus providing no time to the appellants for preparing or thinking for the defence. Lot of stress was laid on the fact that the entire proceedings were concluded within an hour and thus it was not humanly possible for the competent authority to verify the participation of the appellants in the said unlawful procession against the District Magistrate, Faisalabad as well as to give hearing to the persons concerned.

7. Besides these legal objections, it was further submitted that there was no evidence on the record or material with the respondent No.1 on the basis of which he presumed that the appellants had indulged in the aforesaid illegal act, as at the time of hearing of the said case the appellants were not confronted with any such document or infor mation. While concluding his arguments it was submitted that it was the Superintendent of Police himself as well as D.I.G. Police who were at loggerheads with the District administration and virtually they were instrumental in instigating such sort of demonstration by their own stooges and the appellants were made scapegoat, when the S.P. and D. I. G., police came to realise that some sort of action was going to be taken against their such unlawful activities. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on 1980 S C 11 R 850, Lal Muhammad v. S.P. and 1984 P L C (C.S.) 1121. He has placed reliance on the case of Tassuduq Hussain Bukhari v. Government of Punjab which was decided by this Tribunal on 22‑3‑1984. He has further placed his reliance on rule 9 of the Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975; dealing with Special Police Proceedings.

8. On the other hand Mr. Hameed Aslam Malik, S.P., Faisalabad, at the relevant time who appeared in person before this Tribunal had contended that after his return from leave it was found by him, at the time of. Roll Call that a large number of Constables were absent and their names were noted down by him. He further ensured through various agencies of the Police that persons who were absent from the Roll Call be traced, and their activities be reported. After satisfying himself that the appellants were the persons who had actually participated in the demonstration against the District Magistrate, he proceeded against them under rule 9 of the Police (E&D) Rules, 1975, by way of special proceedings and served them with show‑cause notices and gave them hearing although he was not bound to do so under the said rule but in the larger interest of justice he gave them a chance to defend themselves. According to the S.S.P. the appellants had no answer and asked for a pardon. When he was fully satisfied that the appellants were guilty of grave misconduct which even endangered the security of Pakistan and had brought good name of the Department to show humiliation point, that he proceeded to dismiss them from service. It was pointed out by him 'that he could take action against all of them on the same day but as there was feeling of general unrest in the ranks and files of the Police, he did not think it prudent to take action on mass scale, therefore, he dealt with cases of remaining offenders after short interval. It is why he decided cases of other miscreants on 22‑6‑1983, after a period of 10 days. While dealing with the case of second batch he had relied on instructions of the Department, by which he could deal with these cases under the rules, so applicable to them.

9. With regard to the allegation that factually it was the S.P. and the D.I.G., Police, Faisalabad, who had strained relations with the magistracy and they were the only persons who got staged all these protests and demonstration through their own favourite constables and later on made the appellants as scapegoat, the S.P. vehemently denied the same by submitting that so far as he was concerned he was on leave when the incident took place, therefore, the argument so advanced was without any basic while elaborating his argument on this point he has submitted that wherever he had been posted he had best of relations with the magistracy and the District Magistrates working at the relevant time and also with the District Magistrate, Faisalabad, he had very good relations because he and the said District Magistrate, were both sons of ex‑PCS Officers and had been working together at Gujranwala as well. It was further argued on his behalf that he was hardly concerned on personal level with the appellants because the Traffic Cops were always under the immediate supervision of additional S.P. and the S.P. had nothing to do with them as far as day today administration was concerned. However, he had not denied that he was overall Incharge of the District. He has also produced before us the names of the appellants which are included in Roznamcha of the Roll Call as absentee on the said date.

10. We have given, our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the show‑cause notices were issued on 12‑6‑1983, 22‑6‑1983, 20‑6‑1983 and 28‑6‑1983 etc. in which it was clearly stated that due to sequel of the raid conducted by the Anti -Corruption Establishment under the supervision of Mehr Akbar Ali, Magistrate, Ist Class, on Traffic Cops the appellants absented themselves from the Roll Call and then joined hands with their co‑accused by marching through various Bazars of Faisalabad raising slogans against the District Magistrate. They were also told that the proceedings against them were being taken under rule 9 of the Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules, by way of Special Proceedings without holding any inquiry. We will like to reproduce rule 9 of the Police (E&D) Rules, 1975‑‑Special Proceedings, for ready reference:‑

9. Special Police Proceedings: Where an enrolled Police Officer goes on strike, hunger strike, protest or demonstration or by use of threat of criminal force or in any other manner whatsoever, induces or incites away other Police Officer to go on or participate in such strike, demonstration or protest, notwithstanding anything contained in these rules,' the authority, shall:‑ (a) by order, in writing inform the accused officer of the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and grounds of the action and require him to submit his explanation within a specified period; (b) Consider the explanation of the accused, if any, and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action, may award any of the punishments specified in section 7 of the Police Act, 1861: Provided that no such opportunity shall be given where the authority is satisfied that in the interest of security of Pakistan or any part thereof it is not expedient to give such opportunity. The Rule so quoted above discloses that in matters where certain extra ordinary happenings took place, which further lead towards disturbance as well as endanger the security of Pakistan the authority has been empowered to take action straightway against those miscreants without even providing them the opportunity of being heard in person. In the present case the competent authority while acting under the rules, he in the larger interest of justice, apprised the appellants of the charges so levelled against them as well as allowed them to defend themselves and explain their conduct, if they had any cogent reasons for their said misguided action. When it was told to the S.P. that the appellants only wanted to offer apology and beg pardon, he proceeded to take action against them by dismissing them from service as according to him the matter was very grave in nature and they did not deserve any lenient treatment, being members of the disciplined force. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that once he had allowed them a chance to‑ defend themselves, it would be presumed that he had himself dispensed with the Special Proceedings and had treated their cases as ordinary cases of Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, is, devoid of any force. The case of the present appellants by no stretch of imagination can be considered a case of ordinary one attracting E&D Rules, because a turmoil of such nature like a tornido would spread in all ranks and files and even could come into display in other Districts because in the modern days facilities of communication through Telephone and Telegrams were readily available, at places where this happening had taken place. The authority had to nip the evil in the bud and he rightly applied rule 9 of the Police E&D Rules, to which no exception can be taken.

11. With regard to the knowledge of the authority that the persons involved were the same persons who had taken part in the demonstration, we are satisfied that he took all possible pains to see that no innocent person was roped in. He has satisfied us by showing us Roznamcha Roll Call which clearly indicates that all the appellants were marked absent on that fateful evening and various agencies of the Police working in the said District also confirmed that the appellants did participate in the said demonstration. It is also a matter of record that the Authority Mr. Hameed Aslam Malik, S.S.P. was on leave when the incident of clash between Traffic Police and the Raiding Party headed by a Magistrate took place, and he was not in picture when the bails of the Traffic Constables were cancelled by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Faisalabad.

12. While arguing the case of Nazir Ahmad, Riazul Haq Constables learned counsel had argued that they were given different treatment as in their cases rule 9 had not been applied and thus this was a case of discrimination on the part of S.S.P. To this the S.P. had replied that persons like Nazir Ahmad and Riazul Haq had less than 3 years service and action could be taken against them under the ordinary rule 12.21 of the E&D Rules, therefore, no discrimination was done by him, as his policy at the relevant time was to minimise action as far as possible and deal with the cases in a manner which should not result into further deterioration of law and order situation. In the case of Muhammad Akram the learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that his child had died on the same day therefore, it was not possible to conclude that whose child had died, would participate in the demonstration and would not go to the village to attend to the funeral of his dear one. With regard to this argument the S.P. explained that in fact that was an afterthought as no such argument was advanced by the appellant while he was heard in person and there is nothing on the record to show that such like unfortunate incident had taken place because under the rules if anything like happens, the person so affected would record in writing in Roznamcha and would also apply for leave. According to S.P. no body would have refused such leave as in these circumstances sympathies are always with the person who is aggrieved. Replying to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that Tariq Ijaz who was ring‑leader was lightly let off, the S.P. submitted that he never dealt with the accused and he was not in a position to comment upon the same. The case of Tariq Ijaz was dealt with by S.P. Khushab therefore, he would not be in a position to explain why a lenient treatment was meted out to him, if any.

13. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that the appellants being members of disciplined Force had acted in most indis cipline manner and went on rampage on 11‑6‑1983, therefore, the punishment so awarded to them, can neither be considered harsh or unjustified. We have no reasons to disagree with the two well‑reasoned impugned orders of the S.P. and D.I.G., Police, Faisalabad and maintain the same.

14. The result is we dismiss all these appeals as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties. A. E. Appeals dismissed.