1981 PLP S (PLC(CS))

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑The appellant, Muhammad Husain, was serving as Assistant Sub‑Inspector of Police, when the S. P., Gujrat, dismissed him from service vide order dated 29‑10‑1977, on the charge of misconduct. His appeal to the D.

1. G., Rawalpindi Range, in this connexion was rejected on 2‑9‑1978.

2. As the facts go, the appellant is said to have developed intimacy with one Nasim Begum whom he had recovered in a case registered under r.

1. R. No. 140 of 2‑7‑1977. On 27‑9‑1977 the appellant is‑ alleged to have absented himself from P. S. Sadar, Gujrat, where he was on duty, and gone in plain clothes, without recording his departure in the daily diary, but carrying his service revolver, to Tibbi Marian, the village of Nasim Begum. He was intercepted by Muhammad Akbar, the husband of Nasim Begum, and his brothers who beat him up. The appellant is said to have fired two shots with his revolver but was overpowered " by Muhammad Akbar and' party who also snatched his weapon. A delegation of villagers reported the matter to the SP, Gujrat, who detailed Zakaullah Chiragh, the D. S. P. Headquarters, to conduct on the spot enquiry and to retrieve the appellant. In his report, made after recording the statements of about a dozen villagers, the D. S. P. found the appellant guilty of misconduct and recommended departmental action against him which culminated in the appellant's dismissal from service.

3. The parties were heard and the record examined. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order was unlawful and ultra vires of Police (E & D) Rules as no enquiry was held against the appellant and notice to dispense with enquiry was not served on him. Moreover, no witnesses were produced nor the appellant allowed to examine any. Thus he was not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Also, the enquiry conducted by the D. S. P. (Hqr) was not a proper, enquiry under the E & D Rules. On behalf of the respondent, it was stated that the Police E & D Rules had been strictly followed and the proceedings were completely in accordance with these Rules. The appellant was not able to offer reasonable explanation for his absence and for going to Tibbi Marian in plain clothes and carrying his service revolver with him. Moreover the appellant's failure to record the event of his departure to the village in the Police Station daily Diary as enquired by Police Rules rendered his conduct inapplic able and suspicions. Therefore, the appeal deserved to be turned down.

4. We feel that in this case the enquiry conducted by the DSP (Hqrs.), was merely a preliminary enquiry on the basis of which show‑cause notice was issued to the appellant. This show‑cause notice, dated 29‑9‑1977 informed the appellant that the proceedings are to be conducted under rule 3(b) of Police E & D Rules and entail one of .the major punishments envisaged in rule 4(b) of the said Rules. He was duly informed through this', show‑cause notice of the grounds of action and the action proposed to be taken with regard to him. The S. P. was empowered to undertake proceeding under the General Police Proceedings and to dispense with the formal enquiry. The appellant was heard in person, first by the S. P. and later by the D. I. G. who dealt with his appeal. We do not find fault with the manner in which the proceedings were conducted and do not agree that he was condemned unheard or that mala fide played any part in the punishment awarded to the appellant. In fact no plausible arguments in support of alleged mala fide was made on behalf of the appellant. In view of the above the appeal is rejected without, however, any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.