Find a Lawyer

Case Nos. 265173i, 226/758 and 267/7 9 of 1984, decided on 12^th September, 1984.

Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX oaf 1974)-------

---S. 4--Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975- Dismissal--Appellants dismissed from service on basis of their involvement in criminal case and their departmental appeal was rejected on ground that all witnesses were not examined by trial Judge and that they were acquitted by Trial Court to save public time--Perusal of judgment of Trial Court showing that charge against them was not proved by prosecution and that acquittal of appellant was a clear cut acquittal--Basis on which appellants were dismissed by department existing no more orders of authorities dismissing appellants from service and rejecting their departmental appeal set aside and appellants reinstated in service with all benefits.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellants.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

Messrs Moazam Ali, Muhammad Iqbal and Salabat Khan have made these appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein they have impleaded the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad and the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of these appeals, it has been prayed by Moazam Ali, that the impugned orders, dated 10-4-1982, 21-5-1983 and 29-3-1984 be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service, w.e.f. 10-4-1982, with back benefits. Similarly, in case of Muhammad lqbal, it has been prayed that the impugned orders, dated 10-4-1982, 21-5-1983 and 29-3-1984, be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service w.e.f. 10-4-1982 with back benefits. In case of third appeal of Salabat Khan, it has been prayed by him that the impugned orders, dated 10-4-1982, 19-5-1983 and 29-3-1984 be set aside and the appellant reinstated in service, w.e.f. 10-4-1982 with back benefits.

3. Brief facts of these cases are that all the three appellants while posted at Police Station, Lundianwala, alongwith one Taj son of Sikandar caste Dogar, resident of Chak No. 651/2, P.S. Lundianwala, went to the house of Hakam Ali son of Ghulam, caste Dogar of the same village and threatened him of the dire consequence by saying that S.I. Hamid Ullah, S.H.O., is calling him at the police station. While they were on way, the three appellants received Rs.150 from Hakam Ali, complainant, and got his thumb-impressions on blank papers. After getting illegal gratification, they released the complainant. A case F.I.R, No. 11, dated 30-1-f982, was registered against the three appellants. All the three appellants were placed under suspension, w.e.f. 30-1-1982. They were issued with show-cause notices. The appellants submitted their written reply to the show-cause notices. A.S.P., Jaranwala enquired into the matter and submitted his report on 6-2-1982. The Additional Superintendent of Police, considered the enquiry report and replies of the appellants and also heard them in person on 10-4-1982. Their submissions were found unsatisfactory. As the challan had since been submitted to the Court involving the appellants in a criminal case, their retention in the disciplined force was not considered feasible by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad who dismissed them from service, with effect from 10-4-1982, vide his order, dated 10-4-1982. The appellants filed individual appeals to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha, which were considered by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad and rejected, vide his orders, dated 21-5-1983, 21 5-1983 and 19-5-1983, respectively. The appellants filed revision petitions to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore which were also rejected, vide Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore orders, dated 29-3-1984, in all these cases. Hence these appeals.

4. 1 have heard the parties i.e. M.A. Riaz, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney, assisted by the representative of the respondents, on behalf of the respondents.

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellants were dismissed from service on the basis of the F.I.R. No. 11, dated 30-1-1982, registered against them at the Police Station, Lundianwala and the challan had been submitted to the Court against the appellants. As they had involved themselves in a criminal case, their retention in the disciplined force was not considered feasible and they were dismissed from service. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the basis of dismissal of the appellants have fallen on the ground by the judgment, dated 11-12-1982, of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Regions (Annexure 'H'). The learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption has acquitted the appellants by holding that 'there is not an iota of evidence against any of the accused'. Thus, the appellants have been acquitted of the charge against them and the punishment awarded to them could not, therefore, be sustained.

He has also referred to the orders of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad in rejecting the appeals of the appellants, has been mentioned in para. 3 of these orders that "A perusal of the judgment would reveal that all the witnesses were not examined and the accused were acquitted to save public time." The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the above basis of the rejection of the appeals are misconceived and are not in accordance with the facts. He has referred to the paras and 4 of the judgment of the Special fudge, Anti-Corruption, dated 11-12-1982, from which it is clear that the witnesses were examined by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption and he had duly considered the evidence of the witnesses while acquitting the appellants of the charge. Thus, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police had not applied his mind fully on the judgment of the Special Judge, Anti Corruption. Accordingly the learned counsel has summoned his arguments by saying that the Deputy Inspector-General of Police's orders are quite arbitrary and misconceived. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on the judgments of this Tribunal in case of Anis-ur Rehman v. D.I.-G. Police, Lahore and others Appeal No. 729/763 of 1980, announced on 8-7-1981, Case No. 1/1 of 1983, decided on 10-7-1983 and Case No. 62/36 of 1983, decided on 25-7-1983, wherein in similar facts this Tribunal has accepted the appeals.

6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has rebutted the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and he has relied upon the para-wise comments submitted by the respondents. The learned District Attorney has referred specially to the orders of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad by submitting that the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, had held that a perusal of the judgment would reveal that all the witnesses were not examined and the accused were acquitted to save public time. Hence, they were rightly denied the benefit of acquittal in the circumstances by the departmental authorities. The learned District Attorney has concluded that in the circumstances of their cases, no exception can be taken against the impugned orders which are valid and lawful orders.

7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have perused the impugned orders issued by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad in cases of all the three appeals and judgment, dated 11-12-1982 of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Regions. The impugned order, dated 10-4-1982 of Additional Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad is a common order for all the three appellants. Para. 4 of this order is reproduced below to elucidate the matter:--

4. They appeared before the undersigned on 10-4-1982, and heard them verbally. Their submissions are unsatisfactory, According to the report of S.I. Hamid Wish, S.H.O. P.S. Lundianwala, dated 28-3-1982 challan in the above-mentioned case against all the three constables has since been submitted to the Court. As they involved themselves in a crimin4k.,case, their retention in the disciplined force is not feasible. They are dismissed from service, with effect from 10-4-1982.' The period of suspension will be treated as such-"

Similarly the para. 3 (same wording for the three appellants) of Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad of impugned orders, dated 22-5-1983, 21-5-1983 and 19-5-1983, passed against the appellants while rejecting their appeals is reproduced below:--

"3. The appellant alongwith his co-accused has been acquitted by the Court. A perusal of the judgment would reveal that all the witnesses were not examined and the accused were acquitted to save public time. The appellant, during the course of personal .hearing, had nothing to _ to this appeal which has been well-rebutted in the parawise comments made by the S.P. who passed the orders of his dismissal rightly. The appeal is rejected."

The view points of the Departmental Authorities have been that the appellants were involved in a criminal case, have not been acquitted by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption by examining all the witnesses but were acquitted to save the public time.

8. A reference to the judgment, dated 11-12-1982 of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Regions is necessary to clinch the matter. The paras. 2 to 4 of the judgment are reproduced below:--

"(2) The accused have pleaded not guilty to the charge.

(2) Hakam Ali P.W. i, has stated that he had 12 Killas of land at Chah Mananwala in Chak No. 657/2 G.B. and that he gifted away this land to his first cousin Ashraf. He has stated that he does not know the accused, Taj Muhammad never filed case against him. They did not come to him. He does not know them. He has stated that none of the accused took his thumb-impression on any stamp paper. Atta Muhammad P.W. 2, Said Muhammad P.W. 3 have stated that they do not know anything of this case.

(3) Only one witness, i.e. Hamid Ullah Qureshi remains to be examined. All other P.Ws. have been examined. The prosecution has not been able to produce the stamp papers. Even if it is proved in view of the statement of complainant Hakam Ali the prosecution cannot prove that the thumb-impression of stamp paper were taken by the accused. There is not an iota of evidence against any of the accused. To keep this case pending for the evidence of S.I. Police. It would amount to wastage of public time, the accused are acquitted."

The above paras make it clear that the witnesses were duly examined by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption and he has based his findings on the basis of the evidence of the witnesses and he has concluded that:-

"4. Only one witness i.e. Hamid Ullah Qureshi remains to be examined. All other P.Ws. have been examined. The prosecution has not be able to produce the stamp papers. Even if it is proved, in view of the statement of complainant Hakim Ali the prosecution cannot prove that the thumb-impression of stamp paper were taken by the accused. There is not an iota of evidence against any of the accused. To keep this case pending for the evidence of S.I. Police, it would amount to wastage of public time the accused are acquitted."

Thus, it has been held clearly by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption that the appellants have been acquitted on the basis that there was not an iota of evidence against the appellants and the prosecution has failed to prove the case. In the circumstances, I have no doubt in my mind that the acquittal, as per judgment, dated 11-12-1982, has been a clear cut acquittal, where the charge could not be proved by the prosecution. Similarly the basis of the impugned orders of the Additional. Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad that the appellants were involved in a criminal case cannot be sustained as the very charge has been proved to be baseless.

9. Similar cases had already come before this Tribunal for adjudication as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in para. 5 of this judgment. The operative portion of the judgment, in case of Anis-ur-Rehman v. D.I.-G., Police, Lahore and others, Appeal No. 729/763 of 1980, announced on 8-7-1981, is reproduced below:-

"In view of the facts that the basis on which the appellant was dismissed from service has fallen to the ground by the detailed and well-reasoned judgment of the Court of competent jurisdiction, which still holds the field, and, in the absence of a regular enquiry which was a must, in this case, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The result is that we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order as being of no legal effect and direct that the appellant be reinstated in service from the date of his suspension in the office he was holding at the relevant time, as if he had not been removed from the service at all, with all

the back benefits."

The cases of the present appellants are at all fours with the above judgment of this Tribunal. No regular enquiries were held in the present cases and the basis on which the appellants were dismissed has fallen to the ground as the appellants were acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction i.e., Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Regions, vide his judgment, dated 11-12-1982, which still holds the field. In view of this the impugned orders cannot be sustained.

10. The result is that all the three appeals are accepted and the impugned orders so impugned in all these three appeals are set aside as being of no legal effect. The appellants are directed to be reinstated in service from the date of their suspension, with all back benefits.

There are no order as to costs.

M.Y. H Appeals 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.