Find a Lawyer

Case No. 537/70 of 1984, decided on 31st August, 1985.

‑‑‑R. 6‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4‑‑Show‑cause, notice procedure‑‑Regular enquiry‑‑Police constable charged for being drunk and forcibly entering in courtyard of quarter of another constable and knocking door of quarter in an attempt to commit Zina‑bil‑Jabr upon wife of resident‑‑Dismissed from service by following show‑cause notice procedure‑‑Reliance placed on preliminary enquiry conducted in slip shod manner without opportunity of cross‑examination of witnesses to accused and concluded on conjectures and surmises‑‑Allegations of serious nature, in circumstances, held, required conducting regular enquiry providing sufficient opportunity to accused to cross‑examine witnesses and to produce defence evidence‑‑Service Tribunal accepting appeal against impugned dismissal order setting it aside and remanding case, to competent authority for proceeding afresh by way of holding regular enquiry and directing re‑instatement of appellant to bestow upon him status of a civil servant.

Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warriach for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

Amir Khan, ex‑Sub‑Inspector, P.S. Sohawar District Jhelum, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Jhelum District, Jhelum, and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rawalpindi Range, Rawalpindi, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and he be re‑instated in service from 23‑10‑1983.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the Constable Muhammad Nasim No. 643 of P.S. Sohawa presented an application to Superintendent of Police, Jhelum, alleging therein that on the night between 15/16‑8‑1983, in his absence from his quarter, the appellant while drunk and having pistol in his hand, forcibly entered into the courtyard of his quarter. The appellant knocked the door of the room, where his wife was sleeping to commit Zina‑bil‑Jabr upon her as reported by his wife. The appellant failed in his attempt because the door was not opened. The application was marked to A.S.P./U.T. for enquiry. As a result of this enquiry the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice on 5‑9‑1983, by S.P. Jhelum to which the appellant submitted his reply. The appellant was heard in person and was ultimately awarded penalty of compulsory retirement by his order, dated 24‑10‑1983. The appellant preferred appeal before the D.I.‑G. Police, Rawalpindi Range, Rawalpindi, which was rejected by his order, dated 7‑6‑1984. Hence this appeal.

4. I have‑ heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant has not been proceeded properly as required under the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975. The matter was of serious nature for which a regular inquiry was a must. He has submitted that no regular inquiry was held and the appellant has been punished, on the basis of a preliminary inquiry held by the D.S.P. which cannot be said to be an inquiry as required under the relevant rules. The appellant was not given an opportunity to cross‑examine the prosecution witness and also produce his defence witnesses to prove his innocence. The appellant has been punished without proving his guilt. He has referred to the preliminary inquiry report of S. Tehsin Anwar Ali, A.S.P. Jhelum, dated 25‑8‑1983. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that if the statement of Mst. Nasreen Gul wife of Constable Muhammad Nasim, is perused, it would show that the appellant came to her house on the night between 15/16‑8‑1983, at about zero hour and she witnessed the appellant in the moon‑lit. Similarly he has referred the statement of Muhammad Younis son of Abdul Majid, Proprietor Butt Ice Factory, on which a reliance has been placed by the Enquiry Officer that his Ice Factory was situated behind P.S. Sohawa where the quarter of the Constable was visible. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that on 15/16‑8‑1983, it was 6 Zeeqad, therefore, there could be no moon‑lit at zero hour as such the statement of Mst. Nasreen Gul and that of Muhammad Younis could not be relied upon to the effect that the appellant had gone to the quarter of Constable Muhammad Nasim. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that this was a conspiracy headed by Muhammad Suleman Muharrir, Police Station, Sohawa and his party against the appellant who had demonished the Muharrir and Wireless Operator Constable Muhammad Nasim for their evil designs. He has argued that the appellant has been made victim of intrigues by the lower staff of the Police Station and was not at all guilty of misconduct and has been punished quite arbitrarily without proving the charge so levelled against him.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the respondents and has relied on the Inquiry Report of S. Tehseen Anwar Ali, A.S.P. Jhelum, as well. Learned District Attorney has submitted that this is a well considered document and the appellant has been held guilty of misconduct by the aforesaid Enquiry Officer. Learned District Attorney has further submitted that there was no necessity to hold a regular inquiry because a preliminary inquiry was held where the appellant was given an opportunity to prove his innocence. He has submitted that the Authority had rightly proceeded against the appellant by issuing him a show‑cause notice under rule 6(3) of the Police (E & D) Rules, 1975; because there was sufficient material to dispense with regular inquiry.

7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find no justification to agree with the argument of the learned District Attorney that there was no need to hold a regular inquiry. I feel that the allegation was of a serious nature for which a regular inquiry was must. The appellant should have been provided sufficient opportunity to cross‑examine the prosecution witnesses and to produce defence witnesses. I have also perused the preliminary inquiry report of S. Tehsin Anwar Ali Assistant Superintendent of Police, (U.T.), Jhelum, dated 25‑8‑1983, also the statements of Mst: Nasreen Gul and Muhammad Younis (main prosecution witnesses) as referred to by the appellants counsel in para. 5 of this judgment, and find that the appellant was not at all provided a chance to cross‑examine them, as such the inquiry report has been conducted in a slip shod manner and has been also concluded on conjectures and surmises. This inquiry report cannot be considered as a proper inquiry prescribed by the law.

8. In the light of the above detailed analysis of the case, I do not find any justification to maintain the impugned orders and, therefore, proceed to set aside the same. The appeal is accepted and case is remanded to the competent authority to proceed afresh in accordance with Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975, by way of holding a regular inquiry, as the allegation against the appellant is of a serious nature. i The appellant is directed to be re‑instated in service to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant. The fate of the period for which the appellant remained out of service shall also be decided by the Authority, after proceeding de‑novo as directed above. There are no orders 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.