Find a Lawyer

Case No. 800/166 of 1984, decided on 13th October, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, r. 4‑ Disciplinary action‑‑Quantum of punishment‑‑Appellant Police Head -constable charged of misconduct with co‑accused Sub‑Inspector‑‑Penalty of compulsory retirement of co‑accused reduced by Tribunal to that of "censure" and stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect‑‑Guilt of appellant not of that gravity as that of co‑accused‑‑Penalty of reduction in rank of appellant, in circumstances, also reduced accordingly to remove discrimination.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur-Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

Muhammad Hanif, Constable No. 2098/439 of Faisalabad District has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974, wherein he has impleaded the respondents as mentioned above.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that impugned order, dated 1‑2‑1983, 31‑10‑1983 and the final order, dated 31‑7‑1984/ 18‑9‑1984 be set aside and he be re‑instated in service as Head Constable with effect from 31‑10‑1983. It has also been prayed that the intervening period spent out of service be treated as leave of the kind due.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 17‑1‑1983,. Major Muhammad Akram G.S.O.‑II Headquarters Sub‑Martial Law Administrator, Faisalabad talked on telephone with S.I. Muhammad Yousaf while he was posted at P.S. Kotwali to enquire about a case pertaining to a car accident. The appellant was on duty got the Major through with the S.I. to obtain relevant information. The S.I. did not furnish correct information to the Major and tried to hide name of the owner of the car saying that it belonged to Major Yousaf whereas according to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kotwali the car belonged to Major Mustafa. Thereafter; Major Muhammad Akram while using Army Hot line Field Telephone in the presence of Major Ramzan and three Magistrates sitting in the office of the Major heard loose talk between the S.I. and the appellant. The conversation that took place between the S.I. and the appellant was indecent, derrogatory and used filthy language. The appellant was served with a show‑cause notice by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad on 18‑1‑1983. The appellant submitted a reply to the show- cause notice. The reply was not found satisfactory and he was dismissed from service by an order, dated 1‑2‑1983 of the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad. The appellant made departmental appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad wherein the punishment of dismissal was converted into that of reduction in rank i.e., from the rank of H. C. to that of Constable and the period spent by the appellant out of service was treated on leave without pay. Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore which was rejected vide order, dated 31‑7‑1984 (copy to the appellant on 18‑9‑1984). Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties i.e., Mr. M.A. Riaz, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney on behalf of the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of this Tribunal already given in case of other co‑accused Muhammad Yousaf, Sub‑Inspector, Appeal No.368/811 of 1984, in which the penalty of compulsorily retirement was converted to "Censure" and stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect on compassionate grounds and the co‑accused Muhammad Yousaf was directed to be re‑instated in service and the period spent out of service was treated as leave without pay. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the fault of the appellant was of much lesser gravity than that of Muhammad Yousaf, Sub‑Inspector and the punishment awarded to the appellant by the respondents is not commensurate with his guilt. He has prayed that the punishment given to the appellant be reduced and brought at par with that of the co‑accused Muhammad Yousaf, Sub‑Inspector to remove the discrimination.

6. The learned District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and has submitted that the guilt of the appellant stood proved and already a lenient view has been taken by the respondent No. 2, by re‑instating the appellant in service. Thus, the impugned orders are correct and lawful order and no exception can be taken against the same.

7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case very carefully. I have also perused the judgment already given by this Tribunal in case of Muhammad Yousaf, Sub‑Inspector Co‑accused, Case No. 368/811 of 1984 decided on 5‑11‑1984. The operative para 7 of the judgment is reproduced as follows:‑

"7. Hence, there seems to be no justification to interfere with the impugned orders except that taking into consideration the long service of the appellant who was otherwise to retire on 6‑7‑1986 and the appellant being holder of Presidents' Police Medal, therefore, the penalty of compulsorily retirement is converted to 'Censure' and stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect on compassionate grounds. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service. The period out of service of the appellant to be treated as leave without pay. The appeal is accepted to the above extent only."

The perusal of the record shows that the guilt of the appellant was, not of that gravity as that of Muhammad Yousaf, Sub Inspector and in fact the main accused was Muhammad Yousaf, Sub‑Inspector. To meet theends of justice and equity, there is reasoning in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant to remove the cause of discrimination in the matter of quantum of punishment between the two accused. Thus, the punishment of reduction in rank awarded to the appellant is modified as follows:‑

(a) He is re‑instated as Head Constable from the date of his reduction.

(b) He is awarded punishments of "Censure" and stoppage of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect.

(c) There will be no change for the period spent by him out of service and shall be treated as leave without pay as ordered by respondent No. 2 vide his order, dated 31‑10-1983.

8. The up‑shot of the above discussion of the case is that the appeal is accepted to the extent as mentioned in para. 7 above and the impugned orders, dated 31‑10‑1983 of respondent No. 2 and 31‑7‑1984 of respondent No. 3 are modified to this extent.

There are no orders as to costs.

A. E.

Appeal partly accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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