Find a Lawyer

Case No. 173/1644 of 1982, decided on 28th July, 1982.

‑‑ R. 6(3)‑Dismissal from service on charge of corruption while matter still sub judice with Anti‑Corruption Judge‑Order challenged with contention that unless charge of corruption stood proved through Court or by regular enquiry, unilateral action was illegal- Tribunal repelled department's plea that civil servant having been caught red‑handed and admitted his guilt, dismissal from service was justified ‑ Held, that regular enquiry was necessary and ordered civil servant to be proceeded against accordingly after his re‑instatement in service.

P L D 1963 S C 185 ; P L D 1964 Lah. 359 ; 1980 P L C (C. S.) 344 and 1981 P L C (C S) 263 ref.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

Muhammad Nazir ex‑A. S. I. bas filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded S. P. Sargodha and D. 1.‑G. Police Sargodha Range, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 27th December, 1981 be set aside and the appellant be re‑instated in service with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was caught on 14th September, 1981 by Mr. Riaz Tahseen, Magistrate 1st Class. Sargodha and inspector Abdur Razzaq of Anti‑Corruption Establishment Sargodha, while accepting Rs. 1,000 as illegal gratification from one Haji Inayat Ali. Accordingly a case F.1.R. No. 27 dated. 19th September, 1981 under section 161, P.P.C. and 5(2)47, P.C.A. was registered at P.S. A.C.E. Sargodha against the appellant. The case is still sub judice with the Anti‑Corruption Estab lishment. However, without awaiting the decision of Anti‑Corruption Judge, a show‑cause notice was issued on the charge of corruption. The appellant in reply to the show‑cause notice submitted that the case be kept pending till the decision of the criminal case but the Department considered it devoid of any force. The appellant was dismissed from service, on the ground that he was caught while accepting the illegal gratification. His representation also failed against the impugned order so passed against him. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that according to law so settled in this behalf by this Tribunal relying on the authority of Supreme Court of Pakistan and authority of Sind Service Tribunal as well as this Tribunal judgment in case of Anis‑ur‑Rehman v. L‑G. P., it is a must for the authority either to wait for the result of the criminal proceedings so initiated against a civil servant or to proceed against him by method of regular enquiry under rule 6(4) of the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules only. The learned counsel has vehemently argued that unless the charge of corruption stood fully proved either through the verdict of Court of Law or by holding a regular inquiry and providing the civil servant with an opportunity to defend himself, unilateral action like this would be illegal and against fundamental principle of justice.

5. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that as the appellant was caught red‑banded while accepting illegal gratification and he also admitted before the Magistrate 1st Class, therefore, the competent authority was fully within its jurisdiction to proceed against the appellant under rule 6(3) of the Police (E & D) Rules.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the contention so raised by the parties and cannot deviate from our well‑considered earlier judgment delivered in the case of Anis‑ur‑Reman v. L‑G. P., in which we have relied for our decision on the following law laid down in this respect :‑

P L D 1963 S C 185, 1981 P L C (C. S.) 263, P L D 1964 Lah. 359 and 1980 P L C (C. S.) 344.

We have also considered the two judgments of this Tribunal in case of Muhammad Ramzan v. D. C. Faisalabad, Case No. 58/287/78 of 1978 and Appeal No. 6971905 of 1980, Azmat Ali v. S. P. Faisalabad etc. and Appeal No. 40/1009 of 1981, Muhammad Igbal v. S. P. Faisalabad, in which we have held that although a person may be caught red handed yet the matter would be open to determination for the competent Court of law that the case so put up before the Court by the Police, was proved against the civil servant or not. In this way we hold that regular inquiry even in cases, where the persons have been caught in a raid by a Magistrate would be sine qua non before major or minor penalty is imposed upon him.

7. In view of the above we proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the case for fresh inquiry to be conducted against the appellant strictly in accordance with the rules laid down under rule 6(4) of the Police (E & D) Rules. However, the appellant shall have to be reinstated in service first in order to cloth him with the status of civil servant for the purpose of the said inquiry if so advised.

However, there will be no order as to costs.

M. I. 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.