Find a Lawyer

Case No. 216/101 of 1985.

---Dismissal for misconduct--Corruption charge--Accused caught red handed by raiding party headed by Magistrate and tainted currency notes accepted as illegal gratification recovered from pocket of accused- Charge established in regular enquiry on basis of evidence--Service Tribunal, in circumstances, refusing to interfere and penalty of dismissal, held, by no means harsh--Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974),4 S. T

Ch. Bashir Ahmad for Appellant.

Malik Muhammad Sadiq, Deputy District Attorney for Respondent.

Muhammad Sarwar, Ex-Junior Clerk, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the State through Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, as respondent.

2. Through this appeal the appellant Muhammad Sarwar has prayed that the impugned order, dated 29-12-1985 of the learned Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, may be set aside, vide which the departmental appeal against the order, dated 15-5-1984 of the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur, for removal from service of the appellant, was dismissed

3. Briefly the facts of the case as contained in the impugned orders of the learned Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, are, that while posted as Reader to Honorary Special Magistrate, Chishtian, the appellant demanded and accepted Rs.800 from one Noor Ahmed son of Sultan as illegal gratification for showing favour in a complaint case pending against him in the Court of Honorary Special Magistrate, Chishtian. The appellant was raided and caught red handed on 25-4-1982. The appellant was charge-sheeted and departmental inquiry was conducted. The Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar removed the appellant from service vide his order, dated 19-9-1982. The appellant aggrieved this order, filed an appeal before the Commissioner', Bahawalpur Division who remanded the case on technical grounds vide his order, dated 19-1-1983. The Deputy Commissioner again removed the appellant from service vide his order, dated 19-5-1984. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed an appeal with learned Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division which was dismissed vide his orders, dated 29-12-1984. Hence this appeal.

4. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant did not prepare pay bill of the raiding Magistrate and as such the Magistrate was annoyed against him. The learned counsel for the appellant added that the complaint case against Noor Ahmad was dismissed on 17-4-1882 and as such Noor Ahmad did not require to pay any illegal gratification on 25-4-1982. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the complainant Noor Ahmad admitted that on 17-4-1982, the complainant Javed Masih (of Noor Ahmad in criminal case) did not appear in the Court. Similarly according to learned counsel for the appellant, the counsel of Noor Ahmad has ;also supported the version of the appellant. Beside that the file was not taken into custody. The Special Magistrate also confirmed that the complaint was dismissed on 17-4-1982 and the accused was arrested on 25-4-1982 and remained in the lock-up upto 16-5-1982, whereas the copy was issued on 29-4-1982. The learned counsel for the appellant concluded his arguments while stating that Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din, S.I., stated that the file was taken from another Court official. Noor Ahmad stated that Javed Masih complainant appeared on 27-4-1982 but his counsel did not appear. Beside that in the instant inquiry there was no authorized officer.

5. The learned Deputy District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that raid party was headed by Mr. Anwar Ali Magistrate 1st Class Bahawalnagar and the appellant 'was caught red-handed on 25-4-1982 and Rs.800 were recovered from the pocket of the appellant The learned Deputy District Attorney stressed that the complaint case was actually fixed for hearing for 27-4-1982 instead of 17-4-1982. Mr. Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din, Magistrate stated that he took the file from the other Ahlmad and the order-sheet was found changes and this was done with the motive that the complaint should be dismissed on 17-4-1982 in default of the appearance of the complainant. The learned Deputy District Attorney also stated that the raiding Magistrate did not admit any displeasure against the appellant,

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 respondent. I am of considered opinion that in the instant case, at the starting point, the raid was got conducted through Anwar Ali, Magistrate 1st Class and the appellant was caught red-handed, because the tainted bribe money which the appellant accepted was recovered from his pocket by the raiding Magistrate. The mere contention of the appellant that he did not fill the monthly salary forms of the Magistrate, does not in any manner rebut the recovery of the bribe money from the person of the appellant. The Magistrate was heading a raiding party and was not alone to recover the bribe money from the appellant. Mr. Anwar Ali, Magistrate so examined as inquiry witness No.2 and he was corroborated by Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption (inquiry witness No. 1) and Noor Ahmad complainant inquiry witness No.3 by the Inquiry Officer. Secondly a regular inquiry was got conducted and it has been proved that the appellant did receive the bribe money which was p recovered from the appellant. The Deputy Commissioner is authority as well as the authorized officer in case of the appellant. As such there is no force in the plea of the appellant that Noor Ahmad tried to offer him Rs.800 and persuaded the appellant to desist from pursuing the pre-emption case. It has also been brought on record that the actual date for hearing was 27-4-1982 instead of 17-4-1982, but the appellant changed that date to 17-4-1982 so that the case is dismissed in default. Even if for arguments sake without conceding the version of the appellant as well as his defence witnesses, is accepted that the date of hearing was not changed on file, the fact remains that the appellant was caught red handed and the tainted currency notes the appellant received as illegal gratification, were recovered from person by the raiding party, headed by the Magistrate.

7. Hence there is no force in the appeal and the penalty is also no means harsh and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. There will no order as to cost:,.

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.