Find a Lawyer

Case No. 330/338 of 1978, decided on 11th May, 1980.

---R. 8‑Penalty based upon preliminary inquiry‑Accused not con fronted with enquiry report‑Penalty order, held, not sustainable.

P L D 1970 Lah. 811 rel.

‑‑‑ Reversion from officiating higher rank of Police official‑No punish ment.

in this case Nisar Ali Khan, the appellant was dismissed from service vide order dated 22‑6‑1977 by the Superintendent of Police, Multan. His appeal to the D. I.‑G. Police, Multan Range, was dismissed on 14‑3‑1978 while a revision‑cum‑mercy petition to the I.‑G. Police rejected on 16‑10‑1978.

2. The appellant had been accused of burking a crime. On the report of one Imam Shah, he, alongwith three constables, Ali Mohammad, Zar Mohammad and Mohammad Ramzan, raided the house of one Faqir Hussain in order to recover an illicit distillery. It was alleged that the appellant had purposely withheld the fact of having recovered two pots of "lahan" in exchange for a bribe of Rs. 5,000 received by him from Faqir Hussain. It was for this misdemeanour that action was taken against the appellant.

3. The parties were heard and the record examined. According to the respondent department the action against the appellant was taken in pursuance of a complaint about receiving the said bribe made by two persons called Zulfiqar and Ramzan. A preliminary enquiry had been held by the D. S. P. concerned and, in the meantime, the appellant was reduced in rank to Head Constable. The appellant contended that no enquiry was held, as required by the rules, after the charge‑sheet was served on him on 10‑6‑1977, and that the S. P. in a short order dismissed him on 22‑6‑1977. Moreover, in the preliminary enquiry, the D. S. P. heard neither the appellant nor the three constables who formed the raiding party, nor had the competent authority taken note of the fact that the S. H. O. had in a written report, stated that Imam Shah had, on 8‑6‑77, verified the failure of the raid to recover anything from Faqir Hussain's house and that Imam Shah, informer had made no complaint before him regarding receipt of bribe by the appellant.

4. We have perused the S. P.'s order of the appellant's dismissal. It reads as follows :‑‑

"Heard in person in O. R. Explanation not satisfactory. Being corrupt and inefficient not fit for service in Police Department. Dismissed from service with effect from 27‑6‑77."

5. The above order is perfunctory and fails to discuss the charge and the evidence against the appellant. Also, it appears that no regular enquiry was held under the Police E & D Rules. 1975. Moreover, the learned Counsel for the appellant has cited P L D 1970 Lah. 811 in support of the contention that a preliminary enquiry of ex parte nature is no enquiry under the Government Servants (E & D) Rules. It is common ground that the preliminary enquiry conducted by D. S. P. was ax parte and the appellant had, at no stage, been confronted with the enquiry report although the A I. G.(P) relied upon the same, who rather observed that S. P. (MULTAN) was also influenced by the same. In our opinion the proceedings against appellant amounted to denial of proper enquiry and opportunity, to lead defence.

In view of the above the series of orders culminating in the I.G.P. s order dated 16‑10-78 are set aside and the appeal accepted. However, we find no fault with the order of the S. P., demoting the appellant to the ran of Head Constable, as the appellant was an officiating A. S. I. and reversion from an officiating rank is no punishment under the Police Rules.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.