1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Ch. Muhammad Yousaf for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th November, 1992, MUHAMMAD ISMAIL (MEMBER).‑‑‑The facts relevant to the disposal of this appeal are that Mr. Muhammad Riaz, Head Constable and Mr. Muhammad Ashfaq, Constable were serving in the Pakistan Railway Police at the relevant time. Both were on patrol duty with Khushal Khan Express Train from Attock City to Kundian on 26‑9‑1989. They took a' female passenger namely Mst. Tajbar Sultana and her two sons to a railway quarter situated near Railway Station, Kundian and attempted to rape her. In this connection a criminal case vide FIR No. 53, dated 26‑9‑1989 under sections 354, P.P.C. and 10/16/18, Zina Ordinance was registered at Railway Police Station, Kundian against the above accused officials. They were arrested and after investigation, challaned in the Court. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali acquitted both the accused officials under section 265‑K, Cr.P.C. on the aground that main witness i.e. Mst. Tajbar Sultana did not support the prosecution case at all.

2. Both the accused officials were also dealt with departmentally by the Superintendent of Railways Police, Rawalpindi. The Head Constable Muhammad Riaz the appellant in this case, was awarded the punishment of forefeiture of service for three years permanently. The matter was examined at the headquarters office and it was thought that the punishment awarded to the accused official was not commensurate with the severe nature of misconduct committed by him. Accordingly, a show‑cause notice for enhancement of punishment was issued to the appellant. His reply to the show‑cause notice was examined by the D.I: G. Railways Police, Lahore. The appellant was also given personal hearing and he denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty. However, he was awarded the, punishment of dismissal from service vide order of the D.I: G. dated 23‑8‑1990. The appellant filed a departmental appeal against the order of dismissal on 13‑11 1991, which was rejected by the Inspector‑General, Railways Police, Lahore on 11‑1‑1992. Thereafter, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Tribunal on 15‑2‑1992.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant was facing trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge for the alleged offence and he has been acquitted vide judgment dated 2‑11‑1991. The appellant thus stands exonerated from the charge on the basis of which, departmental action had been taken against him. He further argued that the order of punishment dated 30‑5‑1990 forfeiting the appellant's service for three years had become final. As such the D.I.‑G. was not competent to re‑open the issue, hold further inquiry and impose fresh punishment of dismissal from service on the appellant. He further submitted that the victim of alleged offence i.e. Mst. Tajabar Sultana did not name the appellant as offender or having been involved in the offence, in any manner and pleaded that the punishment of dismissal awarded to the appellant was rather harsh and excessive. At the most a very minor penalty could be imposed on the appellant to the extent of his responsibility in supervisory capacity.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents has resisted the appeal and contended that the order of dismissal passed by the D.I: G. in the case of the appellant was based on merit and further submitted that the DIG was competent to review the punishment awarded to the appellant, by exercising powers given to him under Rule 16.28 (i) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The learned counsel also informed the Tribunal that the appeal of the co‑accused ex‑Constable Muhammad Ashfaq involved in the same case filed in the Federal Service Tribunal was dismissed on 18‑6‑1991. Therefore, the appellant has no case on merit.

5. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and going through the record we see no reason to interfere with the findings of guilt. In our view, therefore, the penalty of dismissal from service has rightly been inflicted upon the appellant, who is supposed to protect the life and honour of the passengers being the custodian of law and order. We maintain the' order of dismissal from service and dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.

6. Parties be informed.

7. RANA RIFAT SAEED (MEMBER): ‑‑I agree with the dismissal of the appeal. AA./929/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.