1. M. SALEEM CHAUDHARY (CHAIRMAN).-In this appeal by Mr. Muhammad Bashir, an ex-Constable of Police of P. S. Manawala, he is aggrieved of the order of Superintendent of Police, Sheikhupura, dated 21-1-1976 and the order of D. I.-G. Police, dated 20-3-1976, maintaining the order of S. P. And the order of Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, dated 7.7-1976, rejected the Revision Petition of the appellant. On 9-1-1976, the appellant was served with the following charge-sheet, by the S. P., Sheikhupura:- "That while posted at P. S. Manawala you clad in uniform visited the Court room of Mr. Khalid Bashir Tarar on 10-9-1975 where Muhammad Ibrahim son of Boota, caste Faqir resident of Lalke, P. S. Chuharkana, arrested in case F. I. R. No. 197 dated 21-2-1975 under section 380/457 P. P. C., P. S. Chuharkana had been produced by S. I. Muhammad Khan of C. I. A. Staff Sheikhupura, in the custody of Muhammad Iqbal Constable No. 506 for seeking his remand. You asked the afore--said S. 1 to show the Police file of the case to the counsel of the accused. But he refused to do so and advised to desist from helping the accused.
2. Furthermore Muhammad Ibrahim accused tried to strike his head against the wall at your instance and also tried to escape from the custody of the Police."
3. After the receipt of his reply Mr. Abdul Hamid Inspector, Sub-Division Police Office, Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura, was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who on 20-12-1975 found that all the charges against the appellant were proved and he was also held to be responsible to instigate Ibrahim accused to act in an in disciplined manner by making obscene gestures to Sub-- Inspector Muhammad Iqbal in the Court of Mr. Khalid Bashir Tarar at Sheikhupura. In consequence of the findings of the Inquiry Officer, he was served with a show-cause notice, dated 9-1-1976 and after taking into con--sideration the explanation submitted by the appellant and hearing him in person, the S. P., Sheikhupura vide his order dated 21-1-1976, dismissed him from service. The appeal to the D. I.G. Was also rejected by the authority concerned. Further revision petition to the I.G. Police, Punjab, met the same fate on 7-7-1976. Ultimately the present appeal was filed by the appel--lant before this Tribunal on 2-8-1976. The learned counsel Mr. Noor Ahmad, raised the following contentions in support of this appeal:---
(1) That the appellant was not present at the relevant time, in the Court of Mr. Khalid Bashir Tarar on 10-9-1975. In this behalf he relied upon the entry No. 15, dated 10-9-1975 in the daily Roznamcha of Manawala Police Station, according to which the appellant was on out station duty to deliver Dak in the S. P. Office, Sheikhupura and he was on duty, and there was no report that he committed any deviation;
(2) Secondly the two Advocates appearing for the accused in the case --Ibrahim accused and others in the Court of Mr. Khalid Bashir Tarar, also stated that the appellant was never seen in the Court and he never asked the Police Officer, Muhammad Khan to show the Police file to the Counsel of the accused.
(3) Thirdly the charge-sheet/show-cause Notice had merely charged the appellant that he approached Muhammad Khan, Sub-Inspector Police to show the Police file to the Counsel of the accused, but there was no such findings of the Inquiry Officer. Thus the appellant could not be penalised.
(4) Fourthly the Inquiry Officer examined only two witnesses Muhammad Khan, Sub-Inspector of Police and Muhammad Iqbal, Constable whose evidence could not be considered as independent and thus the involvement of the appellant was not established on the record. He rather relied upon the statement of S. I. Muhammad Khan, who had conceded before the Inquiry Officer that appellant never, approached him for showing any file to the accused.
(5) Lastly the appellant rather argued that in fact his father was also a Police Pensioner and he being the neighbour of the accused had been helping him who also filed complaints against the investigating officer and the investigating officer in order to wreak vengeance has falsely implicated the appellant in this case.
(6) Finally the contention of the learned counsel was that this was not a case of extreme penalty as according to rule 16'2 of the Punjab Police Rules, the dismissal was to be resorted only in the case of grave offence and in the cases of continued misconduct proving incorrigible for the Police Service.
4. He submitted that the appellant had almost 20 years unblemished service and thus the penalty of dismissal was wholly unwarranted and disproportionate to the alleged offence of the appellant.
5. With these submissions he pressed for the acceptance of this appeal.
6. The learned Government Pleader on his turn rather argued that the Inquiry Officer has clearly held that all the charges against the appellant were correct and proved. He also held that the appellant had the motive to help the accused. He vehemently argued that the presence of the appellant was clearly established and the evidence of the Advocates was only to the extent that they may not have seen the appellant asking the Sub-Inspector Muhammad Khan to show the Police file to the counsel of the accused. Thus their evidence did not prove that the appellant did not approach the S. I. Muhammad Khan to show the file. He also contended that the Advocates did not state that he was not present in the Court to instigate the accused and to indulge in highly objectionable behaviour. Thus the conduct of the appellant was certainly not befitting of a member of the Police force. He placed strong reliance on the statement of Muhammad Khan, before the Inquiry Officer who clearly implicated the appellant.
7. After hearing both the parties, we are convinced that the appellant was present in the Court of Mr. Khalid Bashir Tarar. There was a reliable evidence to that effect. The entry in the daily Roznamcha of Mananwala Police Station did not disprove the presence of the appellant. It rather proved that the appellant was present in Sheikhupura on the relevant date and to some extent it lends support to the allegations against him. The statement of the Advocates also did not controvert the correctness of the allegation that the appellant was present in the Court. However, we do agree with the appellant that the allegations relating to obscene behaviour of the accused towards the S.1. Muhammad Khan and the instigation of the appellant in this behalf was neither in the charge- sheet nor in the show-cause notice. Therefore, the same had to be ignored. But that only lessened the gravity of the offence of the appellant but could not exonerate or absolve him altogether. As a Police Officer this was none of his business to contact the S. I. For any favour what--soever for the accused person. The: mere presence of the appellant in the Court of Mr. Khalid Bashir Tarar, which was not authorised by any permis--sion from the competent authority is objectionable and is unbecoming of a member of the Police force. The appellant is said to be in uniform at the relevant time which aggravates leis offence still further. However, we do feel) that the punishment of dismissal was somewhat harsh and was not strictly prescribed under rule 162 of the Punjab Police Rules. We accordingly reduce the same to compulsory retirement, subject to reduction in the penalty, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.