2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑Rr. 3 to 6‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Civil servant who was Inspector in the Police Department, was dismissed from service after issuing, him show cause notice on allegations that he was incompetent, dishonest and corrupt and was living beyond his source of income and that he was an average officer and most of his A.C.Rs. were of Category 'B'‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Major punishment was awarded to civil servant without conducting regular inquiry which was a must before awarding such punishment‑‑‑Order awarding major punishment of dismissal from service was set aside and civil servant was re instated in service ordering de novo proceedings and conducting regular inquiry against him. 1993 SCMR 603 ref. Briefly stated the facts leading to the appeal are that the appellant w&; Inspector in the Police Department. Proceedings under Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 were initiated against the appellant and he was issued show‑cause notice on 6‑6‑2001 on the following grounds:‑‑ "It has been reported by the Superintendent of Police, Sialkot that repeated complaints of corruption were received against him verbally that he is a very corrupt police officer. It has also been reported that he is "living beyond means/capacity. Moreover, he has 6 bad entries in the service record. Thus he is unfit to be retained in the Police Department.

2. In reply to the show‑cause notice dated 8‑6‑2001, the appellant denied the allegations and raised the plea that action has been initiated against him due to personal disliking of Superintendent of Police, Sialkot. His plea was not considered satisfactory and he was awarded major punishment of dismissal from service vide impugned order, dated 12‑6‑2001. The appellant preferred departmental appeal on 10‑7‑2001. It was not decided. Hence this appeal.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Departmental Representative and have perused the record and objections to the memorandum of appeal submitted by the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant joined service as Foot Constable. He was promoted to the rank of Inspector on 6‑10‑2000. No major punishment was awarded to him and thee is no adverse remark in his ACR Dossier. No corruption/embezzlement case or inquiry is pending against him.

5. The respondents in their objections to the memorandum of appeal have stated that the appellant was awarded following punishment during his service:‑‑ (i) Censured in 1996. (ii) Forfeiture of one year's service in 1987. (iii) Censured in 1993. (iv) Censured in 1995. (v) Stoppage of annual increment of one year in 1998. (vi) Forfeiture of one year service in 2001. (vii) Censured in 2001. (viii) Forfeiture of one year's service in 2001. (ix) Forfeiture of one year approved service. (x) Censured. Respondent further stated that according to the report of two independent I agencies, the appellant is incompetent, dishonest and corrupt and is living beyond his means. The appellant was average officer and most of his ACRs are of category 'B'.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant replied that the appellant was awarded minor punishments against specific allegations and the chapter was closed. The appellant cannot be punished twice for the same allegations.

7. The appellant denied the allegations in reply to the show‑cause; notice. He was awarded major punishment without conducting regular inquiry.

8. It was held in 1993 SCMR 603 that for resolving controversial questions of fact, proper course would be to hold inquiry where the evidence have to be recorded and opportunity of cross‑examination has to be provided. Otherwise findings recorded would be based more on conjectures than on evidence. It was held in 1997 SCMR 871 that removal or dismissal from service of civil servant on the basis of summary inquiry is not sustainable in law. Inspector‑General of Police, vide Letter No. 2856‑2898/P‑I, dated 2‑10‑1996 directed all the Deputy Inspectors‑General of Police, Punjab and all Superintendents of Police, Punjab that regular inquiry must be conducted before awarding major punishment. The appellant was awarded major punishment without conducting regular inquiry. The appeal is, therefore, accepted. Impugned order, dated 12‑6‑2001 conveyed to the appellant on 26‑6‑2001 is set aside. Appellant is re‑instated in service. De novo proceedings are ordered. Regular inquiry should be conducted against the appellant. He should be afforded reasonable opportunity to cross‑examine the inquiry witnesses and to produce his defence. The pay of the intervening period shall be decided by the Authority alongwith departmental proceedings. There will be no order as to the costs. H.B.T./72/PST Appeal accepted.