2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JAVED IQBAL, J.

This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 16-2-2000 passed by learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of Muhammad Amjad (Ex-Constable of Police No. 425) has been rejected and order, dated 30-5-1995 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jhelum whereby the petitioner was removed from service has been kept intact. .

2. Precisely stated the facts of the case as enumerated in the impugned judgment are to the effect that "the appellant while posted in District Police, Jhelum, was issued as show-cause notice on the following grounds:-- "The S.H.O. Police Station Civil Lines has reported that on the night between 27/28-4-1995, two accused persons namely Shahzad Gul and Muhammad Yaqoob were confined in the Police Station on physical remand in case F.I.R. No. 144 of 1994 under section 379, P.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines. From 12 (Mid-night) to 3-00 a.m. he was on sentry duty. During duty hours he entered their room and made indecent acts and compel them for unnatural offence, but he could not succeed in his obscene act. In the morning S.H.O. Police Station Civil Lines recorded the statements of both the accused in his presence and. also confronted him with them upon which he appologised. This act on his part had brought bad name to the department. He filed his written reply to the show-cause notice and was also heard by S.P., Jhelum, in the Orderly Room, but his written as well as oral explanations were found to be unsatisfactory. He was accordingly inflicted a major penalty of removal from service, vide orders, dated 30-5-1995, passed by S.P., Jhelum. He filed a departmental appeal before the D.I.G., Police, Rawalpindi, which was also rejected vide orders, dated 6-11-1995. Revision petition before the I.G. Police was also rejected vide orders, dated 11-7-1976." Being aggrieved the learned Punjab Service Tribunal was approached by means of Appeal bearing No. 902 of 1996 which has been dismissed, hence this petition.

3. Heard Mr. Fazal Abbas Bukhari, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner who mainly contended that a false and concocted case was got registered against the petitioner who was held guilty without having a regular inquiry which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is urged emphatically that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner.

4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioner in the light of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 and record of the case. We have also perused the order, dated 30-5-1995 passed by the S.P., Jhelum and the order, dated 11-7-1996 passed by the I.G. Police.

5. After having gone through the entire record we are of the considered opinion- that the petitioner had attempted to commit unnatural offence during odd hours of night with two helpless accused persons against whom a case under section 379, P.P.C. was got registered vide F.I.R No. 144 of 1994 and who as a result of physical remand were kept in Civil Lines Police Station where at 3-00 a.m. i.e. duty hours of the petitioner the said attempt was made but she could not succeed. A complaint was accordingly made to the S.H.O. by whom their statements were got recorded in the presence of petitioner who admitted his guilt and tendered apology. On the report of S.H.O. disciplinary proceedings were initiated which culminated his removal from service. We are not persuaded to agree with the prime contention of learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that a false and concocted case was got registered because a comprehensive inquiry was made and the action was initiated at the report of the victims. The petitioner was afforded proper opportunity of hearing by the S.P. Jehlum. His revision petition was also considered by the I.G. Police and rejected. The necessary mandatory formalities as contemplated under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 were adhered to strictly. No injustice or prejudice whatsoever was done. In the absence of any ill-will or malice which was never alleged against the concerned S.H.O. of Police Station 'Civil Lines or the S.P. concerned, the question of false implication in such a heinous offence does not arise. It is worth mentioning here that petitioner has earned 47 bad entries, which is indicative of his conduct. The learned Punjab Service Tribunal after having taken into consideration the entire record has arrived at the following conclusion which being well-based does not warrant any interference:-- "I have considered the arguments of the parties and find that the appellant was involved in a heinous offence relating to an un- natural offence and his act had brought bad name to the department. He was heard in person by the senior officers of the department where he could not explain his conduct. The appellant has failed to establish any malice against the departmental officers. I do not see any force in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed."

6. The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner was unable to raise any substantial question of law of public importance on the basis whereof the grant of leave could be considered. The petitioner should be thankful to his stars that no criminal case was registered against him. In such view of the matter, the petition being meritless is dismissed and leave declined. S.A.K./M-32/S Leave refused.