Find a Lawyer

Case No. 55/606 of 1984, decided on 25th April, 1985.

‑‑‑R. 6(3)‑‑Show‑cause notice‑‑Regular enquiry‑‑Corruption charge‑ Penalty imposed by following show‑cause notice procedure‑‑Regular enquiry, in circumstances, held, essential‑‑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.

P L D 1974 S C 393 rel.

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 30‑12‑1978 and 15‑8‑1983 be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant posted as S. H.O. Police Station, Kassowal in the year 1978, received a warrant under section 100, Cr.P.C. from the District Magistrate, Sahiwal for the recovery of Mst. Shamim Akhtar daughter of Sher Muhammad but he did not make any entry in the relevant record of the Police Station. Moreover, he recovered Mst. Shamim Akhtar from the house of her father and kept her at his residential quarter at Police Station with ulterior motive and bad intention. He has also accepted Rs.400 as illegal gratification from Sher Muhammad on the pretext to restore the girl to him. For this above misconduct the appellant was issued a show‑cause notice as per details as Annexure 'A'. The appellant submitted a reply to the same. This reply was considered by the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal and he was awarded a punishment of censure, vide his order, dated 30‑12‑1978. The appellant made a representation to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Multan Range, Multan which was rejected, vide his 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 allegations against the appellant are absolutely baseless and incorrect. The appellant had recovered Mst. Shamim Akhtar in compliance of the warrant issued by District Magistrate under section 552, Cr.P.C. As the girl was recovered within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Chichawatni, therefore, the appellant made an entry to this effect on his arrival at Police Station, Chichawatni and a departure for the purpose of recovery. The girl was produced in the Court of District Magistrate who had issued warrant of recovery. Unfortunately, the girl did not opt to go with her father and on the contrary expressed her desire to go with her paramour. This annoyed the father of Mst. Shamim Akhtar. However, Mst. Shamim Akhtar did not make any allegation of having been kept at appellant's residential quarter. This was a baseless allegation of her frustrated father. Furthermore, the wife, children, mother and sisters of the appellant were also staying with him in the residential quarter and as such there was no question of keeping Mst. Shamim Akhtar at his house. The allegation of acceptance of Rs.400 as illegal gratification from father of the girl on the pretext of restoring his daughter to him is also unfounded because it was known to every body that it was for the Court to make the necessary direction as to where or with whom the girl was to be sent and the appellant had no discretion to send her with anybody. It has also been submitted by the appellant's counsel that Mst. Shamim Akhtar was a married woman and she could not be compelled to go with anybody against her wishes. In view of this the allegation of acceptance of any illegal gratification was highly unfounded.

6. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that in case of allegation of acceptance of illegal gratification/ corruption, the law has already been settled by the Supreme Court or Pakistan that in a corruption charge, a regular enquiry is must. In the present case the appellant has been punished on the basis of the show‑cause notice. Thus, the appellant has been prejudiced in the matter, and has been punished without proving his guilt. It has also been prayed by the appellant's counsel that the impugned orders under the circumstances, being illegal be quashed and be set aside.

7. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and has adopted the same in extenso. He has submitted that the appellant had been punished after he was found guilty of misconduct and no exception can be taken against the impugned orders which are valid and justified orders.

8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case very carefully. The show‑cause notice (Annexure 'A') clearly shows that the appellant was proceeded against the corruption charge as well for accepting of Rs.400 as illegal gratification from father of the girl on the pretext of restoring his daughter back to him but we find that no enquiry was held in this case and the appellant was not given an opportunity to defend himself by producing the witnesses in his defence. The law is well‑settled in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as P L D 1974 S C 393, that in a case involving the charge of corruption, it is incumbent for the competent authority to hold a' regular enquiry. Since the provision of rule has not been complied with in this case to hold a regular enquiry, hence the impugned orders cannot be sustained.

9. 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

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.