1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER II).--M/s. Muhammad Basharat Ex-Head Constable Ahmad Din, Ex-A.S.I. and Muhammad Siddique, Ex-A.S.I. have filed the above appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the orders dated 20-5-1985 of the Superintendent of Police, City Division, Lahore vide which the appellants were dismissed from the service. Subsequently vide the orders dated 19-10-1985 of the D. I. G. Police, Lahore Range, the departmental appeals were rejected. The appellants have impleaded the Superintendent of Police, City Division, Lahore D.I.G. Police, Lahore Range and I.G. Police Punjab, Lahore as respondents -(Nos.l, 2 and 3) respectively.

2. Through these appeals the appellants have prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside and the appellants may be re-instated in the service with back benefits.

3. This judgment would dispose of all the three appeals because facts of the case, grounds for the appeal and the impugned orders are identical.

4. The facts of the case are:- "That A.S.I. Muhammad Siddique No.565/L of Police Station Shahdara, Lahore arrested one Haji Muhammad Shoaib Aslam s/o Muhammad Aslam involved in a case F.I.R. No.78/85 under sections 440/447/148/149, P.P.C. Police Station Shahdara, Lahore and made him to sit in the Police Station. On 28-3-1985 at 7-30 a. m. one Iftikhar Ali, Murki Shah armed with revolver entered the Police Station compound and was never checked and searched by sentry present on duty at the police station gate. He (Iftikhar Ali and Murki Shah) came back at 8-15 p. m. alongwith his accomplice Mullan Muzaffar etc. had entered the police station compound and began to fire shots with a revolver at Shoaib Aslam accused of the above cited case. His other accomplices remained present in the police station and helped Iftikhar Ali and Murki Shah and also fired pistol shots but luckily Shoaib Aslam did not receive injury and no other person was hurt. Consequent upon this case F.I.R.No.104 dated 28-3-1985 under section 307/34 was registered at the police station. On receipt of a detailed enquiry report from D.S.P. New Anarkali covering the facts of the above cited case, the appellants Ex-Head Constable Basharat No.3599, Ahmad Din, A.S.I. and Muhammad Siddique Constable were served with show-cause notices. They submitted written explanations thereto, and appeared in the orderly room on 16-5-1985 and were heard in person. They totally denied the allegations and rather submitted that this incident took place out of the main gate of the police station whereas they were inside the gate. Their verbal as well as written submission was contrary to the facts. As per report of the D.S.P. New Anarkali the gate of the police station was opened and did not check Iftikhar Ali and Murki Shah. This Murki Shah again came alongwith his accomplices and they all fired shots at Shoaib Aslam. The appellants were present at the gate but instead of taking some timely action to haul up the assailants he slipped away and did not fire even a single shot at the accused persons. They did not feel their responsibility and did not; perform their duty satisfactorily rather they proved very careless persons and their cowardly attitude brought a bad name to the force. Accordingly they were dismissed from the service. Departmental appeal was filed with the D. I. G. Police which was also rejected. Revision petition was filed with the I.G. Punjab Police but not decided within ninety days and, therefore, the appellants submitted the instant appeal." 4-A. At the time of the arguments- the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned orders are contrary to the instructions dated 4-3-1986 of the I.G. Punjab Police (copy at Annexure 'C' of the appeal) because instead of regular enquiry under the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975 the appellants were proceeded through show-cause notice under the rule 6(3) of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules. The learned counsel for the appellants added that the D.S.P. Anarkali who conducted the preliminary enquiry was biased against the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants further stated that the allegations against the appellants stand demolished because F.I.R. No.104 dated 28-3-1985 (copy of Annexure 'B' of the appeal) was registered the concerned accused were challaned and convicted by the Summary/ Military Court, Lahore and according to F.I.R. the alleged incident took place outside the Police Station. The learned counsel for the appellants closed his arguments while stating that the impugned orders were unjustified and as such they should be set aside.

5. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeals and stated that preliminary enquiry was held against the appellants and they were issued show-cause notices and after giving chance of personal hearing the impugned orders were issued against the appellants. The learned District Attorney concluded his arguments while stating that appellants were rightly punished because their misconducts were clearly established.

6. We have carefully considered the points so raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned District Attorney. We have also, consulted the relevant record including the written objections. It may be observed that undisputedly no regular enquiry was conducted against the appellants according to the directions of the I.G. Punjab Police. Ignoring for the sake of arguments that the said instructions of Police in the capacity of authority could proceed under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975 but the point for determination is whether the impugned orders are fully supported by the relevant record as well as the facts. This would be necessary to point out that F.I.R. No.104 dated 28-3-1985 was registered against Mullan Muzaffar and others (copy at Annexure 'B' of the appeal) but the incident was shown at the G.T. Road near Police Station Shahdara and not inside the Police Station Okara as alleged against the appellants in the show-cause notices etc. In case for the sake of arguments the appellants subscribed the wrong location of the incident in the item No.4 of the F.I.R. in order to cover their misconduct, the Superintendent of Police could get it reconciled during the investigation of the case before it was submitted for trial in the Summary/ Military Court by which the culprits were convicted: Accordingly, the appellants could not be punished without reconciling the location of the incident.

7. Hence the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are accepted, the appellants be re-instated in the service. The period of their absence to be treated as the leave of kind due to the appellants. Announced in the open Court on 6-8-1986. Judgment to be communicated to parties. No orders for the costs. S.Q. /174/Sr.P Appeals accepted.