Find a Lawyer

Case No. 516/898 of 1984.

‑‑‑R. 6 read with I.‑G. Police, Punjab Letter No. 4504‑40/M‑IV, dated 4‑3‑1984, Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4‑‑Show‑cause notice‑‑Procedure‑‑Regular enquiry‑‑Corruption charge‑‑Regular enquiry must be, held,‑‑Head Constable charged for corruption and facing criminal trial‑--Reduced in rank by following procedure of show‑cause notice pending criminal trial resulting in acquittal‑‑Penalty order without regular enquiry, in circumstances, set aside by Service Tribunal re‑instating appellant in original rank with back benefits.

Muhammad Siddiq Javaid Chaudhry v. The Government of West Pakistan, P L D 1974 S C 393 rel.

Sh. Abdul Qayyum for Appellant.

Malik Muhammad Sadiq, Deputy District Attorney for Respondents.

Hafiz Muhammad Amin, Constable No.608, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Rahimyar Khan and the r Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Bahawalpur Range, Bahawalpur, as respondents.

2. Through this appeal the appellant Hafiz Muhammad Amin has prayed that the impugned order, dated 8‑5‑1983, passed by the superintendent of Police. Rahimyar Khan, vide which the appellant vas, by way of penalty, reduced to the rank of Constable from the former rank of Head Constable and the impugned order, dated 31‑5‑1984, ride which the departmental appeal was dismissed, may be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in his former rank.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Hafiz Muhammad min was issued the following show‑cause notice vide orders, dated 20‑3‑1983:‑

(i) The Head Constable Muhammad Ameen No. 608 of this district while posted in C.I.A. Staff (Khanpur Branch) abused his official position and by adopting illegal and corrupt means, during the course of investigation of case F.I.R. No. 15/83 under section 411, P.P.C. P.S. Zahirpir, demanded and accepted Rs.500 as bribe from one Allah Bakhsh son of Faiz Bakhsh resident of Zahirpir to show his favour of his brother in the said case. Consequently the accused (appellant) was caught red handed by a raiding party headed by E. A .C. Khanpur and the above mentioned amount was recovered from his possession. This fact has also been verified by the INSP/CIA during a preliminary enquiry and as such warranted severe disciplinary action against the accused under the Punjab Police (E a D) Rules 1975.

(ii) By reasons of the above the accused is guilty of misconduct within the meaning of section 2(iii) of the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975 entailing one or more of the major punishments envisaged in Rule 4(b) of the said Rules including dismissal from service.

(iii) Having considered the facts and record placed before S.P. Rahimyar Khan, there is ample proof of his guilt and it is expedient in the interest of justice that no enquiry through an enquiry officer is necessary.

Therefore, in accordance with Rule 6(3)(a) and (b) of the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975, accused is hereby called upon to explain in writing within 7 days of the receipt of this show‑cause notice as to why one or more of the major punishments including dismissal from service may not be imposed upon you, stating at the same time, whether are not he also desired to be heard in person.

The appellant filed a written statement and pleaded not guilty. The Superintendent Police on basis of the preliminary inquiry conducted by the Inspector C.I.A. and after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant, reduced the appellant to the rank of Constable. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed an appeal to the D.I.G. Police, Bahawalpur Range, which was rejected vide orders, dated 31‑5‑1984. Hence this appeal.

4. At the time of the arguments the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the accused was involved in corruption case, but without conducting the regular inquiry the appellant was reduced to the rank of Constable merely because the appellant was challaned in a criminal ease, to the Court of learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the appellant was acquitted by the learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Bahawalpur, vide his orders, dated 17‑1‑1984 and as such the allegation against the appellant regarding corruption, stands rebutted.

5. The learned Deputy District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that the preliminary inquiry has been conducted against the appellant by the Inspector C.I.A. and as such it was enough for the departmental punishment of the appellant and his acquittal by the learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, could not set aside the impugned order.

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 and also perused the written objection of the respondent. I am of the considered view that in the instant case there were apparently two options for the authority i.e. Superintendent Police. The first option was that since a criminal case regarding the alleged corruption, was registered against the appellant, the Superintendent Police should have awaited the decision of the learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption. In case the appellant was convicted by the learned Special Judge, then after issue of show‑cause notice under rule 9 of the E & D Rules, 1975, the appellant could have been inflicted any penalty including dismissal/ removal from the service. The other option was that the Superintendent Police should have conducted a regular inquiry through Inquiry Officer after serving the charge‑sheet over the appellant, which is not the case. In this regard I may cite the case Muhammad Siddiq Javaid Chaudhry v. The Government of West Pakistan, P L D 1974 S C 393, in which 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 appellant, 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."

7. Similarly the I.G. Police, Punjab also issued the instructions vide No.4504‑40/M‑IV, dated 4‑3‑1984 to all the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police as well as the Superintendent of Police to hold regular inquiry in the allegations of corruption.

8. Hence in the instant case since the regular inquiry was no held against the appellant and he has also been acquitted by the learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, accordingly the impugned orders are set aside and the appeal is accepted. The appellant be re‑instated in his original rank of the Head Constable with back benefits as may be due under the rules. There will be no order as to costs.

A.E.

Appeal 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.