Find a Lawyer

Case No. 896/1211 of 1984, decided on 12th October, 1985.

‑‑‑R. 6‑‑Regular enquiry‑‑Corruption charge‑‑A.S.I. under training charged for accepting bribe‑‑Tainted currency 'notes recovered from accused‑‑Charge established in regular enquiry‑‑Penalty of reduction in pay by three stages inflicted by taking lenient view on account of accused being a new entrant to Department‑‑Departmental appeal rejected after opportunity of personal hearing by Appellate authority No injustice, in circumstances, held, done and accused treated already leniently on principle of natural justice and equity.

1984 P L C (C. S.) 98; 1983 P L C (C. S.) 266; 1983 P L C (C. S.) 542 and 1983 P L C (C. S.) 713 distinguished.

Rana M.F. Rehman for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent.

Rashid Ahmad Tahir, Assistant Sub‑Inspector of Police, Faisalabad District, Faisalabad, presently posted at Police Station Factory Area, Faisalabad has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad District, Faisalabad as respondent.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned original and the appellate order be set aside and by way of consequential relief the adverse remarks in the appellant's A.C.R. of 1980 be ordered to be expunged together with any other appropriate relief the Court deem fit.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Rashid Ahmad Tahir T/A.S.I., appellant was dealt with departmentally for the misconduct in that while posted at Police Station Mamunkanjan he accepted Rs.1,000 as bribe from Muhammad Aslam in connection with the dismissal of an application submitted by Mst. Shamim Akhtar wife of Muhammad Rafique, resident of Chak No.483/G.B., against Boota etc. of her Chak to the HQ. SMLA/Faisalabad from where it was sent to P.S. Mamunkanjan and subsequently marked to A.S.I. Muhammad Saeed No. 140 by the S.H.O. A.S.I. Muhammad Saeed No. 140 summoned the respondent but the dispute could not be settled, hence Mst. Shamim Akhtar again approached the Martial Law Authorities and stated that she was not satisfied with the action of the local police. The Martial Law Authorities directed for the production of the parties on 17‑9‑1980. In the meantime Muhammad Aslam who was representing the respondent in conciliatory efforts informed HQ. SMLA that the local police was demanding Rs.1,000 as illegal gratification to do the needful. Consequently on 16‑9‑1980 a raiding party comprising Major Muhammad Anwar, Chairman Martial Law Inspection Team, Mr. Abdul Hamid Durrani, M.I.C., and Mr. Abdul Razzaq, Inspector A.C.E./Faisalabad, went to Police Station Mamun kanjan. Babu Muhammad Aslam, the complainant, was given marked currency notes of Rs.1,000 for passing on the same to S.I. Abdul Hamid, S.H.O./P.S. Mamunkanjan but he did not accept the money which was subsequently passed on to the appellant. This money was recovered from him by the Raiding Party and a case F.I.R. No. 27, dated 16‑9‑1980, under sections 161, P.P.C. and 5/2/47 P.C.A. was registered against him at Police Station A.C.E./Faisalabad. The case was subsequently put up before the Anti‑Corruption Committee after normal investigation and it was decided that departmental action should be taken against appellant, A.S.I. Muhammad Saeed No. 140 and S.I. Abdul Hamid No. 54/S, S.H.O./Police Station Mamunkanjan. On the basis of the decision arrived at during the Anti‑Corruption Committee meeting, all the three accused officers were served with show‑cause notices for major penalty. All of them in their explanation to the notices disowned the allegations stating therein that they had been falsely implicated in the corruption case because of annoyance of the complainant party who wanted undue favour which was denied to them. They further requested that regular police proceedings be carried out in order to sift out the truth, so accepting their request D.S.P./HQrs. Ch. Muhammad Shafi was appointed as Inquiry Officer to proceed against them departmentally. In reply to the charge‑sheet, appellant submitted that he had been involved in the corruption case unnecessarily. He was neither nominated in the F.I.R. nor had any link with the disposal of the application of Mst. Shamim Akhtar and that the tainted money was handed over to him under the direction of S.I. Abdul Hamid No. 54/S, S.H.O. that the same should be delivered to the servant of the S.H.O. He pleaded his innocence in the matter on the pretext that he was under training at the Police Station and had absolutely no concern whatsoever for the disposal of application. The Inquiry Officer recorded the statements of witnesses from both sides and also heard them in person in the presence of the appellant. In leis findings he has held him guilty of the charge against him. He has concluded that although the appellant did not demand illegal gratification yet it is proved that the tainted money was recovered from his possession. It was also proved that he visited the Chak of the complainant alongwith A.S.I. Muhammad Saeed for the settlement of the dispute in question and that he was fully aware of the background of the issue. On the basis of the finding of enquiry officer it was clearly proved that the appellant A.S. I. accepted Rs.1,000 from the complainant for which he could not justify his position. He was, therefore, held guilty in the departmental enquiry and punished. However, keeping in view that the appellant was new hand to the Department, and taking lenient view, the punishment of reduction in pay by three stages was inflicted on the appellant by Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad vide his order, dated 26‑i0‑1981. His period of suspension was treated as such. The appellant made an appeal to the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisaladad which was rejected vide his order, dated 13‑10‑1984. Hence this appeal.

4. 1 have heard the parties i.e. Mr. M.F. Rehman, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondent.

5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been punished without following proper procedure as per Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 and the appellant has also been punished against the principle of natural justice. The appellant was not given a chance of personal hearing. The appellant's counsel has further relied on the following reported judgments as well:‑

(i) 1984 P L C (C. S.) 98

(ii) 1983 P L C (C. S.) 266

(iii) 1983 P L C (C. S.) 542

(iv) 1983 P L C (C. S.) 713

On the basis of the above arguments the learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the proceedings against the appellant be considered as null and void and appellant be re‑instated in service with all back benefits.

6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has rebutted the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. He has submitted that proper procedure as required under the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 has been adopted. There is no truth in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that he was not given personal hearing. If a reference is made to the impugned order of the learned Deputy Inspector‑General Police Faisalabad, dated 13‑10‑1984, it is clear from this order that the appellant was heard in person by him. Thus, the appellant was given due opportunity to defend himself. Also a regular enquiry was held in the case by Ch. Muhammad Shafi, D.S.P., Headquarters, wherein the Inquiry Officer recorded th‑e statements of witnesses from both sides and also heard them in person in the presence of appellant. Thus, the appellant was given all the opportunities to defend himself and he was punished only when he was found guilty of misconduct. It has also been pointed out by the learned District Attorney that already a lenient view has been taken against the appellant keeping in view a new hand otherwise he deserved dismissal as charge of acceptance of illegal gratification was proved against the appellant and tainted money was recovered from his possession. The learned District Attorney has also submitted that the appellant has not impleaded the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Faisalabad. Though he has requested for setting aside of the appellate order in his appeal. Keeping in view this lacuna the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.

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 am in agreement with the learned District Attorney that the appellant was afforded the opportunity of personal hearing by the Deputy Inspector -General of Police, Faisalabad as is clear from the appellate order, dated 13‑10‑1984. The proceedings were also conducted correctly under the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975. The enquiry was held by D.S.P., Headquarters. The appellant was afforded due opportunities to defend himself but he could not prove his innocence. It is also a fact that tainted money was recovered from his possession. I have also gone A through the judgments so relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant but I find that these are distinguishable from the case of the appellant, keeping in view the gross misconduct proved against the appellant. Already a lenient view has been taken in the case of the appellant by the respondent on the principle of natural justice and equity and thus, I find that no injustice has been done to the appellant and he has been treated already leniently by the respondent.

8. The upshot of the above discussion of the case is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly.

There are no orders as to costs.

A.E.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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