Find a Lawyer

Case No. 53/604 of 1984, decided on 25th April, 1985.

‑‑‑R. 6(3)‑‑Show‑cause notice‑‑Regular enquiry‑‑Police official alleged to have not complied with directions of Superintendent of Police recorded on application of complainant‑‑Receipt of such application denied‑‑Accused consistently taking same stand before punishing and appellate authority‑‑Penalty of censure imposed by adopting show‑cause notice procedure‑‑Regular, enquiry, in circumstances, held, should have been conducted providing accused opportunity to put up his defence and accused, held, prejudiced in matter of defence‑‑Impugned penalty order set aside by Tribunal and case remanded to competent authority to proceed afresh by holding regular enquiry.

Raiz Anwar for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑‑Manzoor Hussain Shah, A.S.I., Police Station, Multan Cantt. has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal and the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the order, dated 30‑12‑1980 of respondent No. 1 and order, dated 30‑8‑1983 of respondent No. 2, be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice by respondent No. 1, dated 30‑9‑1980, containing the following allegations:‑‑

"On the night between 5/6‑1‑1980, two cows of Shahadat Ali son of Kameer resident of Chak No. 66/4‑R were stolen away by Yaqoob son of Feroze and Allah Ditta son of Mailo resident of 66/4‑R. Both the accused confessed their guilt and informed the complainant that they had sold both the cows to Ghulam Farid Qasab of Okara. You S.I. Manzoor Ahmad Shah while posted as S.H.O. P.S. Noor Shah received applications from Shahadat bearing the orders of Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal for taking legal action but you did not register a cognizable case and thus burked the crime against property. Shahadat appeared before D.I.‑G. Multan Range on 10‑7‑1980 and you were directed to appear before the D.I.‑G. Multan Range on 13‑7‑1980. You then registered case F.I.R. No. 217, dated 12‑7‑1980 under section 379, P.P.C. at P.S. Noor Shah. By reason of the above you appears to be guilty of misconduct as defined in Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975."

The appellant submitted a reply to the show‑cause notice on 27‑10‑1980 which was considered by the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal. The reply of the appellant was found unsatisfactory and penalty of 'Censure' was ordered vide his order, dated 30‑12‑1980. The appellant submitted a representation to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan which was dismissed vide his order, dated 30‑8‑1983. Hence this appeal.

4. It has been argued by the ,learned counsel for the appellant that Shahadat complainant never brought any application bearing the order of Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal for taking legal action nor he had made any oral report to the appellant for registration of the case. Regarding the reference in the order of the respondent No. 2 that the application made by Shahadat to Superintendent of Police was forwarded to Police Station Noor Shah vide No. 925/CC, dated 13‑5‑1980, which was received at Police Station Noor Shah on 14‑5‑1980 as per entry No. 230, dated 14‑5‑1980 of Register No. 5 of Police Station, it has been submitted that this was a reminder from the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal referring some application made by Shahadat to him earlier. His reply to the said reminder, dated 13‑5‑1980 was sent to Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal informing him that no application of Shahadat has been received in the police station with the orders of Superintendent of Police for registration of case, nor Shahadat had appeared in person to make statement for registration of case. In view of these facts the appellant had never burked the crime nor neglected to register the case. It has also been submitted that in the impugned order, dated 30‑12‑1980 of the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal, it has been mentioned that "Shahadat appeared before the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan on 10‑7‑1980 and he was directed to appear before the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police. Multan Range on 12‑7‑1980. He then registered case F.I.R. No. 217, dated 12‑7‑1980 under section 379, P.P.C. at P.S. Noor Shah." It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had been transferred from Police Station Noor Shah on 16‑6‑1980 and had not appeared before the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan on 12‑7‑1980 and consequently Ghulam Mujtaba S.I. actually, appeared before the deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range who registered the case on 12‑7‑1980 as he was the incharge of the Police Station Noor Shah at that time. Thus, the impugned order has been passed against the facts on record and the appellant has been punished arbitrarily without his fault. The appellant's counsel has prayed that the punishment awarded to the appellant is unlawful and the impugned orders be set aside.

5. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents. He has produced the Register of the Police Station, Noor Shah to show that the application of Shahadat sent by the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal was received at the Police Station, Noor Shah on 14‑5‑1980 vide entry No. 230, but no action was taken by the appellant as directed by the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal for registration of the case. Thus, the appellant did not register a cognizable case and thus burked the crime against the property. In view of this the appellant has been correctly held guilty of misconduct and has been punished lawfully.

We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case. The respondents have produced a register as mentioned in para. 5 above to show the entry No. 230 in the register but the original application showing the order of the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal has not been produced before us as it is not readily available with the respondents. As this crucial documents have not been produced before us, we are not in a position to see what orders were passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal on the application of Shahadat. Furthermore, the record shows that the following wording of the impugned order, dated 30‑12‑1980 of the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal is not in accordance with the facts, as the appellant stood transferred from Noor Shah Police Station vide order, dated 16‑6‑1980 of the Superintendent of Police. Sahiwal and he was not S.H.O. Noor Shah on 12‑7‑1980 as mentioned "Shahadal appeared before D. I.‑G. /Multan Range on 10‑7‑1980 and he was directed to appear before the D.I.‑G./Multan Range on 12‑7‑1980. He then registered case F.I.R No. 217, dated 12‑7‑1980 under section 379. P.P.C. at P.S. Noor Shah". It is thus clear that impugned order has been passed in haste by the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal without applying full mind to the case.

7. A consistant stand was taken by the appellant before the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal and the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range in his representation that no application from Shahadat bearing the order of the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal was received by him, hence, it was necessary that a regular enquiry should have been held for providing an opportunity to the appellant to put up his defence/witness/record. Thus, we consider that the appellant has been prejudiced in the matter.

8. The result of the above discussion of the case is that the impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded to the competent authority) to proceed afresh by holding a regular enquiry.

There are no order as to costs.

A. E.

Orders accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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