Find a Lawyer

Case No. 942/1156 of 1984, decided on 24th April, 1985.

‑‑R. 6 (3)----Show‑cause notice ‑ Regular enquiry‑Police official charged for accepting illegal gratification/extortion money from Truck Driver and alleged to have been caught red‑handed by an Army Officer‑Such Army Officer not associated in preliminary enquiry and reliance placed on statement of Truck Driver only -Affidavit of Army Officer on record mentioning that he had neither made any written complaint nor had seen accused receiving money from Truck Driver ‑ Penalty of dismissal imposed pursuant to service of show‑cause notice‑Impugned penalty order, in absence of regular enquiry, in circumstances, held not sustainable hence set aside by Service Tribunal and case remanded to competent authority for proceeding afresh by conducting regular enquiry after reinstating accused (appellant) ‑ Punjab Service Tribunals Act, (IX of 1974),. S. 4.

PLD 1974SC393 rel.

Appellant in person.

Muhammad Ibrahim, Deputy District Attorney for Respondents.

Imdad Hussain, Ex‑A. S. I. of Gujranwala District has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal's Act 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala, and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 29th August, 1984 passed by the respondent No. 2 and 2nd December, 1984 passed by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala be set aside and the appellant be ordered to be treated in continuous service without any break with all back benefits of service.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice, dated 29th August, 1984 under the provisions of Rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 to the effect that while he was deputed at Naka duty alongwith Constables Muhammad Yousaf No. 875, Muhammad Inayat No. 400 and Muhammad Afzal No. 489 stopped Truck No. 1968 AJK and extorted from its driver namely Shabbir Hussain son of Bashir Ahmad caste Warraieh Its, 20 as illegal gratification. He was caught red‑handed by Captain Malik Muhammad Akram of 20 Sind Regiment, who informed about the conduct of the appellant to the Superintendent of Police. Gujranwala. A preliminary enquiry was held by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarter, Gujranwala to probe into the matter and it was proved that the appellant was guilty of gross misconduct, The appellant submitted his reply to the show‑cause notice and was heard in person on 29th August, 1984 by the Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala. The reply of the appellant was found unsatisfactory and the appellant was dismissed from service vide order, dated 29th August, 1984, of respondent No. 2. The appellant pre ferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police Gujranwala Range which was rejected vide his order, dated 2nd December, 1984/4th December, 1984. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties i. e., appellant present in person and Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim, Deputy District Attorney assisted by the repre sentative of the respondents on behalf of the respondents.

5. It has been submitted by the appellant who is present in person that he had been punished arbitrarily without his fault. He has referred to an affidavit of Capt. Malik Muhammad Akram of 20 Sind Regiment (placed on record Annexure "A/9") and has submitted that no report of acceptance of illegal gratification was made by the said Army Officer against him. He has referred to the paras. 4 and 5 of the affidavit.‑

It has been further pointed out by the appellant that no regular enquiry was held which was must keeping in view the verdict of the Supreme Court of Pakistan as the appellant was proceeded for the charge of Corruption' for acceptance of Rs. 20 as illegal gratification. Thus, he has been prejudiced in the matter and has been punished without providing an opportunity to produce the witnesses in his defence and proving the charge of corruption against him. The appellant has prayed that the impugned orders be quashed as these are not in ac dance with the law, are arbitrary and unlawful.

6. When confronted with this situation, it has been made known by the learned Deputy District Attorney and the representative of the respondents that it is a fact that no regular enquiry was held in this matter which is also clear from the parawise comments submitted by the respondents. It was also confirmed that Captain Malik Muhammad Akram of 20 Sind Regiment lodged no written complaint and he was also not examined when the preliminary enquiry was conducted by D.S.P./H.Q., Gujranwala. However, it was pointed out by the learned Deputy District Attorney that a preliminary enquiry was held by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters and the guilt of the appellant was proved. Thus, the appel lant has been punished after his guilt was proved and hence, the impugned orders are lawful and valid orders.

7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also gone through the record of this case very carefully. The parawise comments submitted by the respondents against grounds paras. (i) and (ii) of the appeal make it clear that no regular enquiry was held in this case of the appellant, though the appellant was proceeded against the charge of accepting the illegal gratification. He was also not associated in the preliminary enquiry, held by Raja Munawar Hussain. D. S. P. Headquarters.‑ Furthermore, against grounds para. (iv) of the appeal in their parawise comments it has been mentioned by the respon dents as follows :‑

"It is correct that Captain Malik Muhammad Akram of 20 Sind Regiment who apprehended the appellant and other police constables red‑handed did not make any written statement to any officer. However, the whole factual position was conveyed to the D.S.P. Gujranwala by the said Captain and it was fully supported by the truck driver in his statement recorded by Raja Munawar Hussain D.S.P. Headquarter Gujranwala."

The affidavit of Captain Malik Muhammad Akram, dated 24th January, 1985 (Annexure "A/9") did not support the contentions of the respon dents against the appellant. Paras. 4 and 5 of the affidavit are reproduced below :‑

8. This Tribunal has already held in so many cases relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as P L D 1974 S C 393, that in a case involving charge of corruption, it is incumbent for the competent authority to hold a regular enquiry. Such instruction has also been issued by the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore. Since provision of the rules/law to hold a regular enquiry has not been complied with, hence the impugned orders cannot be sustained.

9. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the appeal is accepted. The impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the competent authority for proceeding in accordance with the law as indicated above. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant to enable the authority to proceed against him. The fate of the period for which the appellant remained out of service will also be decided by the competent authority after conducting the proceedings afresh in accordance with the law as indicated above.

There will be no order as to costs.

A. E

Find a Lawyer Near You

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