Find a Lawyer

Case No. 73/141 of 1983, decided on 30th October, 1983.

‑‑‑R. 6(3)‑‑Misconduct‑‑Civil servant involved in criminal case‑ Dismissed from service for misconduct‑‑Acquitted by Court on being given benefit of doubt‑‑Dismissal upheld by Tribunal.

K.A. Sheikh for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

.‑‑ Mohammad Nawaz Shah, ex‑Constable has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, and has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha and Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 17‑1‑1981, 10‑3‑1982 and 17‑1‑1983, be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a case F.I.R. No, 759, dated 21‑11‑1980 under section 379, P.P.C. was registered at P.S. Civil Lines against the appellant in connection with the stolen flowerpots with flowers from different Nursaries at Faisalabad during the night on 17‑11‑1980. The appellant was arrested by the Local Police and the stolen property was recovered from his house in Mohallah Mohammad Abad. He was challaned after due investigation. He was served with a show‑cause notice for major penalty including dismissal from service for this misconduct. The appellant submitted reply denying the allegations contained in the said show‑cause notice. The Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, dismissed him from service vide order, dated 17‑1‑1981. He filed an appeal before the D.I.‑G. Police on the ground that as he has been acquitted by the trial Court, he may be reinstated in service, However, the D.I.‑G. did not accept his plea as he found that the trial Court had acquitted him giving him the benefit of doubt. His appeal was rejected on 10‑3‑1982. He went before the I.‑G.P., Punjab where his revision petition also stood rejected. 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 Depart ment and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that once the appellant had been acquitted by the trial Court, it was not justified that his appeal should have been rejected by the D.I.‑G. Police. A stress has been laid on the point that the Trial Court while concluding the case had mentioned that the appellant was being acquitted after being given the benefit of doubt, would in no way deprive the appellant of the judicial verdict in his favour. He has taken us through the judgment to pursuade us that in fact, the said observation was unwarranted. Besides this major point, he has also assailed the order of S.P. Faisalabad, on the ground that he cannot dismiss the appellant summarily by dispensing with the regular enquiry, as it was a must for him to form his independent opinion after holding a regular enquiry against him.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the order of the D.I.‑G., Police was perfectly legal when it was found by him that the acquittal in favour of the appellant was not honourable, but the same was based on the benefit of doubt. He has stoutly defended the judgment of the S.P. Faisalabad, on the ground that the S.F. had taken into consideration of the established fact that during the investi gation of the case registered against the appellant, it was fully proved that the appellant was guilty of this theft and stolen property was recovered from his house.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced before us and on perusal of the record it is revealed that the judgment on which the case of the appellant has been based, did not give honourable acquittal to the appellant and he was let off, by giving him the benefit of doubt. We have perused the judgment ourselves and do not find any exception to the view so taken by the D.I.‑G. Police.

8. With regard to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the S.P. should have held regular enquiry before proceeding against the appellant, we have satisfied ourselves from the record of this case that the S.P. arrived on a positive conclusion relying on an unrebutted evidence that the appellant was a person who had stolen the flower as well as pots. In view of the above, S.P. had sufficient material to proceed against the appellant by dispensing with the regular enquiry. With regard to the career of the appellant, we find that he got 13 punishments for various misconducts, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant had unblemished record of service.

9. In view of the above, we do not find any exception with the well‑considered order of S. P. Faisalabad, D. I. G. Police as well as I. G. P. Punjab, and dismiss the appeal as being without any merit. There will be no order as to costs.

M. I. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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