1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IHSANUL HAQ CHAUDHRY, CHAIRMAN.‑‑These are 8 appeals by Constables, who managed to get their papers of examination B‑1 replaced by deceitful means with the collusion of Hamid Mukthar, Sub‑Inspector, who was O.S.I. , Punjab Reserve Police Headquarters, Farooqabad. These appeals raise common questions of law and fact, therefore, we are disposing the same by one judgment.

2. The relevant facts for the decision of the appeals are that the appellants appeared in the examination known as B‑1 held on 19/20th January, 1985. It seems that they have not done well in the examination. Mr. Hamid Mukhtar, O.S.I. offered them to replace the answer books subject to the candidates including the appellants paying him Rs.2,000 as illegal gratification for this purpose. Since the Sub‑Inspector had done this mischief at a large scale, therefore, it came to the notice of the authorities. It was decided to take disciplinary action against the S.I. as well as Constables. The appellants were accordingly served with similar show‑cause notices, the relevant portion of which reads as under:‑ "You, Const. (now HC) Muhammad Aslam No.2109 managed to get your papers of B‑1 Examination held on 19/20‑1‑1985 at P.R.P. Hqrs. Farooqabad replaced by an irregular manner with connivance of SI/Hamid Mukhtar former 0/SI P.R.P."

3. The appellants submitted reply to their respective show‑cause notices. The respondent No.l called them for personal hearing. The respondent No.l was not satisfied with the explanation rendered by the accused officials and after due consideration of the whole matter, ordered their dismissal from service. The orders of the respondent No.l are again identical and dated 4‑7‑1985. The relevant portion reads as under:‑ "Constable (now H.C.) Muhammad Aslam No.2109 appeared in B‑I Examination held on 19/20‑1‑1985 at P.R.P. HQ Farooqabad and approached S.I. Hamid Mukhtar OSI through Const. Muhammad Amir No.272 and Constable Shaukat Ali No.2015/1603 with the request to help him in the said Examination and paid a sum of Rs.2,000 as illegal gratification for the replacement of papers. On a complaint an enquiry was conducted by Agha Muhammad Asif D . S. P and he admitted his fault before the Enquiry Officer. For this gross misconduct a show‑cause notice under Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 for major punishment including dismissal from service was issued to him which he received himself. He submitted his reply to the said notice which has been found unsatisfactory. Moreover, he has admitted his fault before the Enquiry Officer. He has been given personal hearing by the undersigned to explain his position but he failed to add anything fresh to his written explanation. The charge against him has been proved beyond any doubt. In view of the above fact, Constable Muhammad Aslam No.2109 is dismissed from service with immediate effect."

4. The appellants feeling aggrieved by these orders of their dismissal from service assailed the same through separate appeals before the respondent No.2, who after due consideration of the whole matter and granting personal hearing to the accused civil servants proceeded to reject their appeals. This order is dated 26‑10‑1985.

5. Thereafter the appellants and the principal accused, Hamid Mukhtar filed the representations before the Respondent No.3. The representations of the appellants were rejected by Additional Inspector‑General of Police vide order dated 26‑6‑1986 while the representation of the principal accused was accepted by Hafiz S.D. Jami, the then Inspector General of Police vide order dated 9‑2‑1986 on the ground that punishment of dismissal from service is a bit harsh and taking a lenient view a. penalty of forfeiture of two years approved service was ordered instead.

6. The appellants naturally feeling dissatisfied with the discriminatory treatment metted to them at the hands of respondent No.3 decided to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal through present appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. These appeals were admitted to regular hearing and the respondents have resisted the same, filed written objections and prayed for the dismissal of these appeals.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and Deputy District Attorney for the respondents and gone through the paper books of the appeals. The learned counsel for the appellants in favour of the appeals has argued that the appellants had metted with discriminatory treatment as much as principal accused, who had squeezed huge amounts from the appellants and others has been let out very cheaply by Respondent No. 3 who set aside the orders of dismissal from service and instead imposed minor penalty of forfeiture of two years approved service, while the appellants have been deprived of their jobs. The learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, concluded that the orders of the Respondent are bad in law and are liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellants in support of the arguments referred to case of M. Shafi Khalique v. Secretary Establishment 1984 P L C P.30 the relevant portion reads as under:‑ "

14. As regards the second point, we do see some force in it. Instances were mentioned before us, and not denied by the respondent‑department, of employees of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, even in the Embassy at the Hague, dealt with much more leniently in similar circumstances. In the face of these instances, we are unable to see any justification for the attitude adopted in the case of the appellant. Penal action may be both punitive and deterrent, but, it cannot be justified if it discriminates between offenders of the same category. Specially in the administrative field, it would be subversive of good order and discipline and, therefore, not in the public interest to allow any employees of Government to harbour a grievance of being discriminated against. We, therefore, uphold the appellant's contention on this point." On the other hand, the learned Deputy District Attorney has submitted that since the Sub‑Inspector had a clean record and longer service of about 8 years, therefore, he was treated leniently and as such there was no discrimination, whatsoever.

8. We have considered the arguments in the light of the precedent case. The Sub‑Inspector, who was guilty of breach of trust, misuse of his official position and receiver of illegal gratification has been let off only with minor penalty of forfeiture of two years approved service whereas the appellants, who fell victim to the vicious designs of said Hamid Mukhtar have been dismissed from service. The guilt of Hamid Mukhtar, OSI was of greater magnitude because he was responsible collectively for the whole of the mischief while the appellants were responsible to their own extent. Above all Hamid Mukhtar being officer was to be dealt with more harshly as against Constables. This way there were absolutely no mitigating circumstances to let him off so cheaply. This type of bad precedents shake the confidence of the subordinates, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, result in indiscipline. We are of the considered opinion that if the liability of accused servants was to be compared, then the appellants should have been treated leniently and not Hamid Mukhtar because the mitigating circumstances were on the side of the appellants. The penalty imposed is out of all proportions. The object of disciplinary action is both punitive and deterrent but it could not be justified if it discriminates between the offenders. The Sub‑Inspector had received thousands of rupees as illegal gratification from the Constables and the price he had to pay for this misconduct was just forfeiture of his two years approved service. This will not have any deterrent effect, which is one of the basic purposes for which the Efficiency and Discipline Rules have been enacted, rather it will encourage him and others.

9. We have considered all the pros and cons of the matter from all angles and are of the considered opinion that legally there is no justification to maintain the penalty of dismissal from service awarded to the appellant specially in view of the penalty imposed on Hamid Mukfitar, Sub‑Inspector. All persons are equal before law and it is constitutional requirement that there should be no discrimination. There cannot be double standard one for the officials and other for the other civil servants. The departmental authorities exercise jurisdiction in disciplinary matters which is akin to the parental jurisdiction, therefore, they should treat all the subordinates alike. We are unable to find any justification, whatsoever, for step motherly treatment given to these appellants. The penalty awarded to the appellants was harsh as compared to Hamid Mukhtar, Sub‑Inspector, if the magnitude of misconduct and their status are kept in view. Therefore, they were to be treated more leniently than their officer. But the respondents have not kept these important factors in view while awarding penalty.

10. We are of the considered opinion that the respondent No.3 should not have lost sight of the fact that such discriminatory treatment is bound to adversely affect good order, discipline and morale of the force. Therefore, it is against public interest and policy to give an impression in the mind of the public servants that there are two standards of justice in the matter of discipline because in such situations they will lose sense of protection, on the one hand, and on the other hand, it will result in class hatred.

11. The upshot of the discussion is that the appeals are accepted and the orders of the respondents are set aside and the appellants re‑instated in service. They will not be entitled to any salary for the period from 4‑7‑1985 to 12‑11‑1987. There is no order as to costs. S. Q. /176/Sr.P Appeals accepted.