1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Malik Aaam Rasool Special Government Pleader for Respondents. Date of hearing : 15th July, 1982. ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER), ‑Liaqat Ali ex‑constable, it the traffic Guard "A" Division, Lahore has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded Superintendent Police, Headquarters, Lahore and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order of his dismissal be set aside and ordered to be re‑instated in the Police Force.

3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant was posted as constable in Traffic Guard "A" Division, Lahore. On 20th May, 1980, the appel lant alongwith another constable, Abbas Ali, were arrested by the Anti Corruption Police on the allegation of accepting Rs. 10 from one Muhammad Hanif, a Rickshaw Driver as motive or reward for returning his licence. The appellant was captured red‑handed by the raiding party of Anti‑Corruption Department under the supervision of Mr. Munawar Ali Khan (M. I. C.), Lahore resulting in registration of case F. I. R. No. 30, dated 20th May, 1980 under section 161, P. P. C. and 5th February, 1947 P. C. A. and 7/14 M. L. R., P. S. A. C. E., Lahore, against him, The appellant was charged‑sheeted by the Superintendent of Police, Traffic Lahore and proceeded against under the (E & D) Rules, 1975. A regular enquiry was conducted against the appellant and he was found guilty of gross misconduct. Thus, he was dismissed from service on 28th March, 1981. Simultaneously Anti‑Corruption establishment investigated the case against the appellant and ultimately sent up the case against the appellant and Abbas Ali Constable, in the Court of Special Judge, Anticorruption, Lahore. This case was decided by the Court on 3rd June, 1981. The appellant filed an appeal to the respondent No‑ 2 against his dismissal. The appellant also produced a copy of the judgment of his acquittal by the Special Judge. Anti‑Corruption, Lahore before the respon dent No.

2. After going through the defence plea of the appellant and facts of the case, respondent No. '' (D. L‑G.) Police, Lahore Range, Lahore rejected his appeal. Hence this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for appellant has argued and relied on S. & G. A. D. Department letter No. S(R) I‑1.3/58/SOXIII, dated 30th September 1958, laying out the principles to be followed in taking departmental action against a Government servant who has been proceeded criminally but is acquitted by the Court. He has referred to para. 2 of this letter and argued that in the appellant's case the decision of the Court on the facts should have been accepted and no departmental action should have been taken. He further argued that the judgment of the Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, is in the appellant's favour. He has been acquitted, honourably, thus, he should have not been dismissed from service. Action taken against the appellant is not justified, unlawful and not maintainable. On the other hand Malik Azam Rasool, Special Government Pleader, controverted these arguments by saying that if reference is made to instruc tions in para. 1 of the same letter as referred to by the appellant's counsel, it refutes his own arguments as given by him concerning departmental action required to be taken against the appellant. Furthermore, he read out the last para. of the Judgment of the Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, which is reproduced as follows :‑ "The result of the above discussion is that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It would be unsafe to convict the accused on the solitary uncorro borated testimony of the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, I acquit both the accused under section 245 (1), Cr. P. C." Malik Azam Rasool argued and concluded that above Judgment is quite clear and cannot be interpreted as `Honourable'. He further laid great emphasis on this point that appellant was dismissed as a result of charge proved on account of regular departmental enquiry which the competent authority had decided to hold against him. Thus, he was given full opportunities to defend himself under the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975. 5 We have gone through the record of the appellant's case and also given the weight to the arguments of the appellant's counsel and Special Government Pleader. We are fully satisfied that the Superinten dent Police, Headquarters, Lahore was fully justified in getting regular departmental enquiry conducted and processing of this case under the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975. Therefore, the appellant was afforded full opportunities to defend himself. We need not go into the merits and demerits of his acquittal by Anti‑Corruption Judge as argued by the appellant's counsel and Special Government Pleader, because the appellant was dismissed much earlier as a result of regular departmental enquiry conducted against him where charge was rightly proved against him. We have gone through the enquiry file, wherein Abbas Ali Constable, co accused, in his statement had admitted that he did receive Rs. 10 from the appellant, when he was caught red‑handed by the raiding party. Thus, the charge had been proved against the appellant and he resultantly found guilty of misconduct. In so many judgments given already by this Tribunal, it has been held that regular enquiry is must in a case where an accused is proceeded against on a charge of corruption In this case, the same requirements were complied with and end of justice has been met.

6. Therefore, we conclude that there is no merit in his appeal which is dismissed as such. There will be no orders as to costs. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.