Find a Lawyer

Case No. 582180 of 1982, decided on 31st August, 1983

-- R. 4 (1) (b) (iv) ---- Dismissal --- Charge of corruption -Holding of regular enquiry-Allegation in show-cause notice clearly of corruption and civil servant even at preliminary enquiry not provided opportunity to produce witnesses in his defence Holding of regular enquiry in such cases a must, order of dismissal of civil servant, held cannot sustain-Case remanded to competent authority for proceeding afresh against civil servant in accordance with law, in circumstances.

1980 P L C (C. S.) 418 ; 1980 P L C (C. S.) 611 ; 1980 P L C (C. S.) 562 and P L D 1974 S C 393 fol.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun. District Attorney for Respondents.

Zafar Ali, ex-Constable No. 417, District Sargodha has mace this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha, the Deputy Ins pector-General of Police: Sargodha Range, Sargodha and the Additional Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the order of dismissal, dated 28th September, 1980 and orders passed by respondents 2 and 3, dated 9th September, 1981 and 1st November, 1982 be set aside and the appellant be re-instated into service with retrospective effect and all previous benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Mr. Zafar Ali, ex- Constable, was served with a show-cause notice, dated 25th August, 1980 by Superintendent of Police, Sargodha; on the charge of receiving Rs. 100 as illegal gratification for returning an illicit arm to Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad son of Muhammad Khan, Carpenter resident of Vijh. It was also decided to proceed against the appellant by way of general police proceedings without appointing an Enquiry Officer under the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975. The written explanation submitted by the appellant was considered by the authority. He was also heard in person. He was found guilty of misconduct and dismissed from service by Superintendent of Police, Sargodha vide his order, dated 28th September, 1980. He made an appeal to Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha which was dismissed vide his order, dated 9th September, 1981. The appellant made a petition to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore which was considered and filed by him vide his order, dated 1st November, 1982. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been proceeded on anonymous complaint, wherein the charge of accepting Rs. 100 illegal gratifica tion was levelled against the appellant. No regular enquiry was conducted. A preliminary enquiry was ordered by S. P., Sargodha to be conducted by Inspector, C. I. A. He enquired into the matter but did not give any opportunity to the appellant to put up his defence, cross question the prosecution witnesses and thus the appellant has been condemned without putting his defence in the matter. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the charge against the appellant was of the corruption and it has been held by this Tribunal in so many cases relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan that in a case of corruption charges conducting of a regular enquiry is must. As no regular enquiry has been held in this case, the appellant has not been afforded opportunities to defend himself. Thus, he has been prejudi ced in the matter and punishment awarded to the appellant has been given without proving the charge against him. Thus, the punishment awarded to him is unjustified and unlawful.

5. The learned District Attorney has submitted, as the charge was proved against the appellant when the matter was enquired by the Inspec tor, C. I. A., hence the appellant has correctly been held guilty of misconduct and punishment so awarded to the appellant is in order and lawful.

6. I have given my anxious thought to the argument of the parties and have carefully scrutinized the show-cause notice and allegations therein. The allegation contained in the show-cause notice is clear of corruption against the appellant i.e. accepting of Rs. 100 as illegal gratification for returning illicit arm to Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad son of Muhammad Khan, Carpenter, resident of Vijh. A regular enquiry should have been conducted against the appellant to give him an opportunity for producing the witnesses in his defence. This Tribunal has already held relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as 1980 P L C (C. S.) 418; 1980 P L C (C. S) 611; 1980 P L C (C. S.) 562 and P L D 1974 S C 393; that in cases involving charges of corruption, it is incum bent for the competent authority to hold a regular enquiry. Since the pro vision of rules has not been complied with in the case of holding a regular enquiry, hence the impugned orders cannot be sustained. This fact can not also be ignored that the appellant's counsel has vehemently argued that the appellant has not been provided an opportunity to produce the witnesses even when the preliminary enquiry was held and the appellant has been punished without proving the charge against him.

7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal is accepted. The impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the compe tent authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Sargodha for proceeding in accordance with the law as indicated above. The appellant is directed to be re-instated in service to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant to enable the authority to proceed against him. 'The fat of the period for which the appellant remained out of service will also be decided by the competent authority after conducting the proceedings in accordance with the law, as indicated above.

There will be no order as to costs.

M. Y. M. 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.