Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Case No. 54/605 of 1984, decided on 25th April, 1985.
--‑‑R. 6(3)‑‑Show‑cause notice‑‑Regular enquiry‑‑Police official charged for delay in submission of challan for trial‑‑Penalty of censure imposed by following show‑cause notice procedure‑‑Stand consistently that there was no delay on his part and he was not responsible for lapses if any‑‑Accused, in circumstances, held, prejudiced in defence and competent authority should have got conducted regular enquiry to fix responsibility after affording defence opportunity‑‑Impugned penalty order set aside by Tribunal and case remanded to competent authority for proceeding afresh by holding regular enquiry‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4.
Riaz 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 impugned orders, dated 30‑9‑1978 and 15‑8‑1983, be set aside on the ground so mentioned in his appeal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while posted as S.H.O., P.S. Kassowal prepared challan in Chak No. 112, dated 16‑8‑1978 under section 6 of Gambling Ordinance on 18‑8‑1978 and the final case diary in the said case was also prepared by him on 16‑8‑1978. The challan was delayed till 9‑9‑1978 without any justification. The appellant thus delayed the trial of the case, which amounted to inefficiency and misconduct. A show‑cause notice was issued against the appellant on 18‑9‑1978. The appellant submitted a reply to the show‑cause notice on 21‑9‑1978 which was considered by the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal and he was censured, vide order, dated 30‑9‑1978. The appellant submitted a representation to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan which was filed, vide their order, dated 15‑8‑1983. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the. parties i.e. Mr. Riaz Anwar, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A. G. Humayun, District Attorney on behalf of the respondents.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the allegation against the appellant is absolutely unfounded. The case F.I.R No. 112, dated 16‑8‑1978 was investigated by A.S.I., Allah Wasaya. The challan was of 18‑8‑1978 and the appellant handed it over to A.S.I., Allah Wasaya for submission to the prosecution branch for verification and onward transmission to the trial Court. Before, the challan could be submitted to the prosecution branch the accused therein filed a complaint against Allah Wasaya, A.S.I., in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate. The Ilaqa Magistrate sent for the police file alongwith challan in connection with the complaint proceedings. In view of this the submission of the challan was delayed. Road certificate 198/21 was issued on 31‑8‑1978 to Allah Wasaya, A.S.I., for submitting the challan through prosecution branch. The prosecution branch also took its time to verify the challan and the challan was then actually submitted to the prosecution branch on 10‑9‑1978. In view of the above facts the appellant was not responsible for the so‑called delay in filing of the challan and he has been punished arbitrarily and without his fault.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has relied upon the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and has submitted that it was actually the appellant who delayed the challan without any justification. He also did not follow up the matter with his subordinates and he was personally responsible for the delay of the challan. Thus, he has been held correctly guilty of inefficiency and misconduct and has been punished correctly and lawfully. Hence, no exception can be taken against the impugned orders which are valid and lawful orders.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record of this case very carefully. A stand has been taken by the appellant /appellant's counsel that he was not responsible for the lapse and A.S.I.. Allah Wasaya was responsible for the same. The same stand was taken up by the appellant in his reply, dated 21‑9‑1978 to the show‑cause notice before the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal and through a representation, dated 26‑2‑1981 before the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan. In view of these facts, it was incumbent upon the competent authority that a regular enquiry should have been conducted to fix the responsibility on the concerned official and an opportunity should have been afforded to the appellant to produce his defence/witness/record to find out the truth in the matter. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has been prejudiced in the matter and has been punished without proving his guilt.
8. The result of the above discussion of the case is that the impugned I orders are set aside and the case is remanded to the competent authority to proceed afresh by holding a regular enquiry.
A.E.
Orders accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer