Find a Lawyer

Case No. 660/78 of 1984.

---R. 6(3)--Show-cause notice--Enquiry--Absence from duty without leave--Facts visible and patent--Enquiry not necessary--Police Constable during training at Sihala absenting for 5 days--No explanation to cover absence--Service record carrying bad entries due to unauthorised absence from duty on various occasions.--Such facts, held, sufficient for penalty of dismissal from service for official belonging to disciplined force--Dismissal from service by resorting to show-cause notice, in circumstances upheld by Service Tribunal.

Sh. Abdul Qayyum for Appellant.

Malik Muhammad Sadiq, Deputy District Attorney for Respondents.

Syed Zafar Ali Shah, ex-Constable No.681, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Bahawalpur and Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Bahawalpur Range, Bahawalpur and Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. Through this appeal the appellant Syed Zafar Ali Shah, ex-Constable No.681, prayed that the impugned order of the Superintendent Police, dated 18-7-1983, vide which the appellant was dismissed from the service and the impugned order dated 27-11-1983, vide which the departmental appeal as rejected by the D.I.-G. of Police, Bahawalpur Range, may be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in the service.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Syed Zafar Ali Shah was issued show-cause notice under rule 6(3) of Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975, by the Superintendent of Police, on the following two counts:-

(i) That the appellant Syed Zafar Ali Shah absented from duty without leave w.e.f. 25-2-1983 during his training at Sehala College.

(ii) That during the said absence the appellant on 1-3-1983 visited the shop of Bashir Ahmad son of Ali Muhammad et Hasilpur and told Bashir Ahmad that the appellant was a Policeman and was carrying a warrant against him for service which was actually not the case but he managed to receive Rs.100 as illegal gratification from him on understanding that he would get the case closed. Beside that the appellant on arrival of M/s. Abdul Majid and Mushtaq Ahmad, on their request that their challans should also be got cancelled, received Rs.80/80 as illegal gratification from them. However, when the said person asked the appellant to show them the warrants, the appellant tried to dodge them and on suspicion the appellant was taken to the Police Station and a case under sections 461 and 420, P.P.C. as well as under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was got registered against the appellant.

The appellant filed written statement and pleaded not guilty and the Superintendent of Police after affording the appellant opportunity of personal hearing, dismissed the appellant vide orders, dated 18-7-1983 on ground of absence from duty without leave and as well as for extorting money as illegal gratification through fraud from the shopkeepers of Hasilpur. The appellant filed departmental appeal which was dismissed by the D.I.-G. of Police, Bahawalpur Range, vide orders, dated 27-11-1983 after hearing the appellant in the orderly room. The representation of the appellant was also dismissed by the I.-G Police, vide orders, dated 18-7-1984. Hence this appeal.

4. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that no regular inquiry was conducted in this case which was a material omission on part of the department. In the grounds of appeal it was pleaded that the dismissal of the appellant was due to registration of the criminal case against the appellant, but neither the detailed regular inquiry was held against the appellant, nor the decision of the Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption was awaited.

5. The learned Deputy District Attorney opposed the appeal on the ground that the appellant was not merely dismissed on account of registration of criminal case for extorting illegal gratification from the shopkeepers of Hasilpur, but was also dismissed on ground of absence from duty without leave of the competent authority.

6. I have carefully considered the points so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Deputy District Attorney for the respondents. I have also consulted the relevant record including the written objections of the respondents. I am of the considered opinion that no doubt in cases involving allegations of corruption, either the respondents department should have awaited the decision of the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption or in the alternative subjected the appellant to a regular inquiry, but this is not the case. In the case Muhammad Siddiq Javaid Chaudhry v. The Government of West Pakistan P L D 1974 S C 393, the Honourable Supreme Court made the following observations:-

"Taking now the facts of each case it will be noticed that the authorities concerned in the case of Muhammad Siddiq Javaid Chaudhry and Mumtaz Hussain Malik appellants, terminated their services on the ground of unsatisfactory work and conduct. The record shows that there were allegations against them of corruption. In these circumstances, the order terminating their services amounts to removal and dismissal within the meaning of Article 177 and they were entitled to a show-cause notice under Article 177 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1962.

On these findings I will accept all the appeals and will hold that the services of all the appellants were terminated in violation of Article 177 of the Constitution of 1962 and they are still in service. It is, however open to the respondents to hold proper enquiry against them after show-cause notice is issued."

As such I could accept the appeal and remand the case with the directions to take one of the two actions against the appellant as stated below: -

(i) That the respondent department should await decision of the learned special Judge Anti-Corruption and on event conviction of the appellant, he can be issued show-cause notice under rule 9 of Punjab Government Servants (E & D) Rules, 1975 and then can inflict the penalty on the appellant.

(ii) The respondent Department may conduct a regular inquiry against the appellant after framing a charge-sheet and appointment of an Inquiry Officer etc.

However, before the case could be considered for acceptance of the appeal, for remanding the point for determination is whether the first charge against he appellant, namely his absence from duty without leave w.e.f. 25-2-1983 and without permission from the competent authority, also requires a regular inquiry In this regard it may be stated that in cases of allegations of misconduct concerning absence from duty without leave, no regular inquiry is necessary because the p facts of absence from the duty are quite visible and patent. The record does not show any grant of leave and in the instant case the appellant has not been able to state that he was not absent w.e.f. 25-2-1983 from Sehala to 1-3-1983 when he was handed over at Police Station Hasilpur by the shopkeepers and the case was registered. In fact the appellant has not been able to state supported with the record that he did not absent himself w.e.f 25-2-1983 to 1-3-1983 or that he was on leave granted by the competent authority. Accordingly, the appellant belonging to a disciplinary force and absenting from duty without leave w.e.f 25-2-1983 who had already earned ten bad entries all due to unauthorized absence from duty on various occasions in his service role, as observed by the D.I.-G. Police, Bahawalpur Range, in the impugned order, dated 27-11-1983, in sufficient for infliction of the l impugned penalty of dismissal from service.

7. Hence the appeal is dismissed on ground of the appellant's absence from duty w.e.f 25-2-1983. There will be no order 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.