1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Rashid, Ex‑Constable No. 8 of Sahiwal District, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan and Superinten dent of Police, Sahiwal as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impu gned orders, dated 30th August, 1981 (Annexure `A'), dated 31st March, 1982 (Annexure `B') and dated 15th February, 1983 (Annexure 'C') passed by the respondents be set aside and he be re‑instated in service with effect from the date of his dismissal with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Muhammad Rashid, Ex‑Constable No. 8 of Sahiwal District, while posted at Police Station. City Okara on 23rd March, 1981, was found in a state of drunkenness and when medically examined, the medical officer found that the appellant was under the influence of liquor. A case F. I. R. No. 71, dated 23rd March. 1981, under section 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, was registered at P. S. City, Okara. After the completion of the investigation, the appellant was challaned. The appellant was also suspen ded from service, on 23rd March, 1981. A regular Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the appellant but on 30th August, 1981, the Assistant Commissioner, Okara (Shariat Court) held the appellant guilty and convic ted him to rigorous imprisonment for two years. Thus, any further enquiry, in the matter already adjudicated upon by a competent Court, was not considered necessary. As the appellant had been sentenced judi cially to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month, he was not consi dered fit to be retained in a force which is meant for eradicating the crime/anti‑social elements. He was dismissed from service with immediate effect vide Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal, order dated 30th August, 1981. He made an appeal to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan which was rejected vide his order, dated 31st March, 1982. The appellant made a petition to the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore which was considered and filed vide his order, dated 15th February, 1983. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was dismissed from service on the basis that he was convicted by the Assistant Commissioner, Okara (Shariat Court) on 30th August, 1981. Regular inquiry was initiated but stopped as the appellant was convicted by the competent Court, hence no further inquiry to the same subject‑matter already adjudicated by a competent Court was considered necessary. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was honourably acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Sahiwal. The reliance was made by the appellant's counsel on the judgment of the said Court announced on 15th November, 1981 (Annexure 'D'), through which the conviction and sentence of the appellant has been set aside and he was acquitted honourably of the charge. It has been, thus, submitted by the learned counsel for the appel lant that the basis on which the appellant was dismissed, have fallen on ground on honourable acquittal of the appellant by the Sessions Judge, Sahiwal as mentioned above. It has been prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the honourable acquittal of the appellant of the charge against him, the impugned orders of the respondents are unjustified, unlawful and cannot be sustained.

5. Controverting the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned District Attorney has relied on the parawise com ments submitted by the respondents and also the details mentioned in the impugned orders, dated 30th August, 1981 and 31st March, 1982 of the respondents Nos. 3 and 2 respectively. It has been submitted by the learned District Attorney as the appellant was involved in a serious offence, was convicted and sentenced by a competent Court, hence impugned orders of the respondents are well‑considered, valid and lawful orders.

6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case. This is a similar and identical case involving the similar facts and point of law as decided earlier by this Tribunal in case of Anisur Rehman Khan v. D. I.‑G. Police, Lahore and others Appeal No. 729/763 of 1980, announced on 8th July, 1981, the operative portion of the judgment is reproduced below :‑-- "In view of the facts that the basis on which the appellant was dis missed from service has fallen to the ground by the detailed and well‑reasoned judgment of the Court of competent jurisdiction, which still holds the field, and in the absence of a regular enquiry which was a must in this case, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The result is that we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order as being of no legal effect and direct that the appellant be re‑instated in service from the date of his suspension in the office he was holding at the relevant time, as if he had not been removed from the service at all, with all the back benefits." This case is on all fours with the above judgment of this Tribunal. No regular enquiry was held in the present case and the basis on which the appellant was dismissed has fallen on ground on honourable acquittal of the appellant by the judgment of the Court of the competent jurisdiction i.e. Session Judge, Sahiwal, dated 15th November, 1981, which still holds the field. In view of this, the impugned orders cannot be sustained.

7. The result is that the appeal is accepted. The impugned orders are set aside, as being of no legal effect and direct that the appellant be reinstated in service from the date of his dismissal, as if he had not been removed from the service at all, with all back benefits. There will be no order as to costs. M. Y. H. Appeal accepted.