1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑Mr. Muhammad Afzal ex- Constable No. 510 has filed an appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Civil Service Tribunal Act, 1974, against order of his dismissal passed on 27‑5‑1979 by Superintendent of Police, Jhelum. The appellant has impleaded Superin tendent of Police Jhelum, D. I. G. P. Rawalpindi Range and I. G. Police, Punjab as respondents and has prayed that the impugned order be set aside and he be ordered to be re‑instated in the service from the date of his dismissal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant while posted in District Jhelum was prosecuted vide F. I. R. No. 44 dated 22‑4‑1979 under section 354/452 of P. P. C. registered at Police Station, Chakwal. According to the case of prosecution on 22‑4‑1979 one Ghulam Sajjad, a peon in the Education Department, went to his house. On seeing the main gate bolted he entered the house by scaling the wall. When he opened the door of the room he saw Muhammad Afzal constable embracing Mst. Naheed Akhtar. On the alarm raised by him Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Khan were attracted to the spot and they tied the appellant with a rope and proceeded to get the case registered against him. However the appellant managed to escape in their absence. The appellant was originally convicted by the Magistrate concerned but later, on remand of his case by the Session Judge, he was acquitted on 28‑11‑1979 by Magistrate First Class, Chakwal. However, before his ultimate acquittal he was proceeded departmentally and an enquiry was conducted against him by P. D. S. P. He was found guilty and after going through the formalities under the rules the competent authority dismissed him from service. His appeal before the D. I. G. Police, Rawalpindi Range also failed and the review‑clan‑petition filed by him before the I: G. Police, Punjab, Lahore met the same fate on 16‑I1‑1979, hence this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the Government Pleader and have perused the impugned order under appeal and his ultimate representation before the I. G. Police. The para-wise comments in this case have also been duly considered by us. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the competent authority as well as the Appellate Authority have failed to consider that the charges for which he had been awarded this extreme penalty of dismissal were found not proved by Magistrate First Class, Chakwal, before whom the entire prosecution case was presented, therefore, no departmental action was called for against him when a judicial verdict was in his favour. It was vehemently argued that when the appellant had faced the hazard of a trial and ultimately acquitted the order of dismissal against him was totally unjustified. On the other band the Government Pleader has rebutted the plea of the appellant on the ground that judicial acquittal did not make immune the appellant from the Depart mental action as the conduct of the appellant present and past fully justified the punishment so awarded against him. 5. We have given our anxious thought .to all the prose and cons of this case and find that the preliminary enquiry conducted against the appellant by P. D. S. P. Chakwal fully substantiated his misconduct and his acquittal by Magistrate First Class was based on the statements of prosecution witnesses who had resiled from their initial stand and were declared hostile. Mst. Naheed Akhtar also failed to appear before the Magistrate and the Magistrate observed in his judgment that she seems to have reconciled with the appellant in that case. We have also noted that the competent authority also took into consideration that the appellant had made an incorrect statement before him by stating that during his 8 years of service his conduct was flawless, whereas the perusal of his service record showed that he was proceeded against in year 1974, for misbehaving with his fellow constables as well as with his superiors in office. It eras further noted by the said authority while deciding the case of the appellant that he was proceeded against under section 29 of the Police Act for being absent from duty without leave although ultimately he was acquitted on being given the benefit of doubt. His plea that he was victim of a conspiracy of his colleagues and superiors was found to be without any substance by the competent authority as he failed to produce any evidence on this score. We cannot fail to ignore the matter of common knowledge that a" member of the police force would not be arrested and prosecuted by his own colleagues in service for such a heinous offence involving moral turpitude if without any substance. The appellant remained behind the bars and faced a criminal trial in which he was originally convicted but later on acquitted due to his conciliatory efforts by prevailing upon the prosecution witnesses, a phenomenon not very uncommon in the field of criminal procedure. A person who being a custodian of law and order has to be have in an exemplary manner and his involvement in a case of present nature against him would certainly reflect on his conduct and would make him a most unsuitable person to be allowed in service. Unless and until a person is honourably acquitted by a Court of law he cannot be given benefit in departmental action when the case against him has fallen through manipulations. The authorities dealing with his case have fully considered all this matters before them and after taking into consideration his pleas anal defence came to a justifiable decision that the conduct of the appellant throughout his eight years career was a chequered one culminating into moral deprivation. 6. In view of above we do not find any merit in his appeal before us and dismiss the same. Petition dismissed.