1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Aslam, Ex‑Constable No. 2669, Police Station New Anarkali, Lahore, now resident of 13/5, Church Road, Old Anarkali, Lahore, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, City Division, Lahore D.I.‑G. of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore and Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugn ed orders, dated 26th August, 1980, 24th June, 1981 and 3rd February, 1983 be set aside and he be reinstated in service from 26th August, 1980 with all back benefits of pay and allowances etc.

3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant was served with a ahow cause notice, dated 19th August, 1980 by Superintendent of Police, City Division, Lahore, dated .19th/20th August, 1980 on the allegation that the appellant while posted at P. S. New Anarkali visited the house of Muhammad Alam, resident of Nizamabad Colony, Saddar, alongwith S. I. Maqsood Ahmad and Constable Jaffar Hussain No. 4345 on 15th June, 1980 and threatened him that a case has been registered against ail the family members of his house (Muhammad Alam's daughter and her children who was living with him due to strained relations with her husband). S. I. took Muhammad Umar, his son and later on released him after obtaining Rs. 500 as bribe from Muhammad Alam. Actually no case had been registered against him and his family. There after, the appellant alongwith Constable Jaffar Hussain visited Muhammad Alam's house again and again to arrest the whole family of Muhammad Alam. Both of them demanded Rs. 400 more from Muhammad Alam, as their share. Accordingly a case F.I.R. No. 57, dated 6th July, 1980 under section 161, P. P. C. 5(2)(47) PCA and 7/14 M L R, P. S., ACE, Lahore, was registered and a raid conducted under the supervision of Mr. Irshad Akhtar Qureshi, Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore. He was caught red handed and arrested in this case. This amounted to his gross misconduct/ corruption. The appellant replied to the said show‑cause notice and categorically denied that he never visited the house of Muhammad Alam nor demanded Rs. 400 as bribe from any member of the family. The tainted money had been planted against him by the Anti‑Corruption Inspector, he was rounded up and a false case was registered against him. The appellant was heard in person. The explanation of the appellant was not found satisfactory by Respondent No. 1 and he was dismissed from service w. e. f. 26th August, 1980. The appellant made an appeal to the D. I.‑G. Police, Lahore Range, Lahore, who considered and rejected it vide his order order, dated 24th June, 1981. He then made a revision/ mercy petition to the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, who con sidered and filed the same vide his order, dated 3rd February, 1983. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was dismissed from service by respondent No. 1 merely on the basis of show‑cause notice and that too on the allegation of corruption as he was caught red‑handed in a raid conducted by a Magistrate Ist class, and arrested in the said raid According to respondent No. 1, this amounted to gross misconduct/ corruption and the appellant was not considered fit to be retained in service. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that no regular enquiry was held to find out the truth in the matter. While submitting an appeal to Respondent No. 2, the appellant had prayed that as his case was yet to' be decided by the competent Court of law, his dismissal by respondent No. 1 was uncalled for and unjustified, as the allegations levelled in the F. I. R. were yet to be proved by pro ducing evidence by the respondents. No consideration was given to the request of the appellant and appeal was rejected by respondent No.

2. Similarly when the revision /mercy petition was under consideration, he was heard in person by respondent No. 3 i.e. I.-G. Police, Punjab, Lahore. The appellant also placed the judgment before the I.‑G. P. Punjab, Lahore, announced in his favour by the Special Judge Anti- Corruption, Lahore, who had acquitted him, but no consideration was given to this judgment by him and his revision petition was filed. Rely ing on the judgment of Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption Lahore, dated 12th October, 1981 learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though the appellant was acquitted honourably and even then the appellant has not been reinstated in service by the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant read out the judgment to show that the acquittal of the appellant by the competent Court was honourable. Concluding his arguments the learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that in view of honourable acquittal of the appellant, the impugned orders of the Respondents are unjustified, unlawful and these be quashed.

5. Controverting the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned District Attorney has relied on the para-wise comments submitted by the respondents and also the details mentioned in the impugned orders. It has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that as the appellant was caught red‑handed in a raid con ducted by the Magistrate 1st Class, hence gross misconduct of the appel lant stood proved and he has teen punished validly and lawfully.

6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also gone through carefully the show‑cause notice and the impugned orders so passed by the respondents. The judgment, dated 12th October, 1981 announced by said Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Lahore, has also been perused very carefully. As mentioned in para. 4 above, this was read out at the time of arguments by the learned counsel for the appellant. This judgment clearly shows that the appellant was acquitted honourably by the said Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, and the contention of the respondents that the appellant was acquitted on techni cal ground, by giving the benefit of doubt, is not true and has no force at all. This is identical case involving similar facts and points of law as decided earlier on 8th July, 1981 by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 729/763 of 1980. Anisur Rehman v. D. I‑G. Police, Lahore Range, Lahore. The operative portion of the said judgment is reproduced below for ready reference :‑‑ "In view of the fact that the basis on which the appellant was dis. missed from service has fallen to the ground by the detailed and well reasoned judgment of the Court of competent jurisdiction, which still holds the field, and in the absence of a regular enquiry which was a must in this case, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The result is that we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order as being of no legal effect and direct the appellant be reinstated in service from the date of his suspension in the office he was holding at the relevant time, as if he had not been removed from service at all, with all benefits." This case is on all fours with the above judgment of this "Tribunal. No, regular enquiry was held in this case and the basis on which the appellant was dismissed has fallen to the ground due to the acquittal of the appellant by the judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction viz. Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Lahore, dated 12th October, 1981 which still holds the field. In view of this, the impugned orders cannot be sustained.

7. Resultantly, the appeal is accepted and impugned orders are set aside as being of no legal effect and direct that the appellant be reinstated in service from the date of his dismissal as if he had never been dismissed from service, with all back benefits, There will be no order as to costs. A. E. Appeal accepted.