Find a Lawyer

Case No. 583 of 1980, decided on 26th October, 1981.

‑‑ R. 6 (4)‑Dispensation with regular enquiry on charge of corrup tion ‑ Appellant dismissed from service without providing opportunity to cross‑examine witnesses‑Possibility of biased action and innocence of appellant not excluded ‑ Benefit of doubt going in favour of person, order of dismissal set aside.

Khalid Javed for Appellant.

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

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).

‑ Mr. Muhammad Arif ex- Traffic Constable has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act against the order of dismissal, dated 1st March, 1980. He has impleaded the D. I.‑G. and the S. P. as respondents. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order, dated 1st March, 1980 be set aside and he be re‑instated in service.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as traffic constable in the Police Force Lahore. It was alleged against him that he during his routine duty alongwith an A. S.‑I. and Head Constable came across a wagon and stopped the same for the purposes of checking its papers, etc. He was told by the driver as well as by the occupant that the passengers of the said wagon were relatives of D. S. P., lchhra there fore he had no business to stop them. According to the prosecution he did not oblige and rather insisted that he would challan the driver and will impound the vehicle. It has been stated on behalf of the prosecution that when Rs. 30 were given to him by the driver he allowed the wagon to proceed towards its destination. When this matter came to the knowledge of D. S. P., Ichhra he fell rightly annoyed and moved the authorities into the matter to take action against the appellant. A show‑cause notice was issued to him by the Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Lahore in which the above‑mentioned facts were recounted and he was asked to show cause within 7 days of the show‑cause notice as to why he should not be removed from service for misconduct. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the allegation and contended that it was not possible for him to commit such act particularly when A. S.‑I. Muhammad Akbar and Head Constable Muhammad Bashir were present in the same Chowk and were checking the vehicles. In view of the serious allegations so levelled against him he demanded a regular enquiry so that to justify his stand of not accepting any bribe and further pleaded that it was a case of mistaken identity and he was made an escape goat under some misconception. However the S. P. Traffic, Lahore in his short order invoking his powers under rule 6 (3) and relying on the preliminary enquiry which according to him was made under his orders dismissed him from service. His appeal was also dealt with the same result, vide orders dated 2nd September, 1980 of Mr. Jehan Zeb Burki, D.I.‑G. Police Lahore Range. However, the D.L.G. took exception to the conduct of the A. S.‑I. Akbar which according to him should have been confronted with the appellant to find out whether he had or had not given amount of Rs. 30 to the Inspector Traffic. He recommen ded disciplinary action against A. S.‑I. also.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the District Attorney and have perused carefully the record with the assistance of the Attorney. It has been submitted that the procedure adopted by the S. P. competent authority was in violation of the law laid down from time to time by this Tribunal as well as the superior Courts in the matter including the Supreme Court of Pakistan. According to the learned counsel it was incumbent upon the competent authority to hold a regular departmental enquiry under rule 7 (1) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 as it was a case of corruption and no direct evidence was available to hold whether the appellant was the person who had accepted the bribe or it was someone else. It has been further argued that they were 4 people on duty at that time i.e. A. S.‑I. Muhammad Akbar, L. H. C. Muhammad Bashir No. 1481, Constable Maqsood Ahmad No. 4521 and appellant. In view of the number of persons involved it was imperative to hold an identification in order to fix the name and identity of the real delinquent. It has been further submitted that appel lant is educated uptil F. A. and has earned a cash reward of Rs. 100 and 4 commendation certi5cates from the D. I.‑G.

We have given our anxious thought to the case of the appellant and find one thing certain that where a charge of corruption is made regular enquiry is must by appointing an Enquiry Officer under rule 6 (4) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules. This view stands reiterated in many of our earlier judgments on the ground that a charge of corruption being a very serious charge would need a probe and the person who is charged should be given chance to cross‑examine the wit nessed and to put up his defence to enable the Enquiry Officer to reach the justified conclusion. In this particular case there was another aver ment in the way of the competent authority which could have been removed by him by confronting Traffic Inspector with the appellant as held by the D. L.G. in his appeal so as to establish whether the allega tion this nature i.e. returning Rs. 30 by the appellant is correct or not. Although the consensus of this important issue for resolving the contro versy the D. I.‑G. did not remand the case at this point but concluded that the appellant was guilty. The appellant from the very beginning demanded an enquiry and denied the charge in toto. In view of his stand it would have been proper as well as fair to meet the ends of justice, to get the matter settled under the rules which provide such action. We also cannot ignore the fact that the matter was initiated at the instance of a D. S. P. who happened to be S. P. at Lahore at the complaint of his near relation who must have felt insulted as to why a wagon was not allowed to proceed when the identity of the passengers was disclosed as to the relation of the D. S. P. This prejudice would certainly will make the action if not bias but still not free from ultimate or stop action bias against the appellant by the Traffic Inspector who was ordered to probe in the matter otherwise. In view of the back features of this case and taking into consideration the human nature and contending circumstances i.e. annoyance of D. S. P., the possibility of the innocence of the appel lant cannot be excluded. It is a fundamental principle of justice that benefit of doubt alwas goes in favour of the accused and not in favour of the prosecutor. The very reading of the judgment of the D.‑I. G. and his pertinent observation with regard to the process of confrontation to elicit the truth of the matter we consider reasons fortify to arrive at the conclusion that the case of the appellant and remand for enquiry was fully justified.

In view of our above observation and conclusions we accept the appeal and set aside both the impugned orders. 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.