SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.--- The petitioner, ex-Sub Inspector, Police, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 10-2-2004 of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal. It arises out of the following circumstances.
2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1.975 by way of show-cause notice, dated 21-3-2000, according to which on the night between 20/21-3-2000, he apprehended three persons brought them to Police Station, Sadar, Muzaffargarh, they were subjected to severe torture as a result of which one Allah Diwaya, succumbed to injuries for which F.I.R. No, 120, was registered on 21-3-2000, under sections 302/452/342/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station, City Muzaffargarh. On 22-3-2000 i,e, the next day, the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffargarh passed the order i,e, "I therefore, finding the S.I. Guilty of above gross misconduct award punishment of reversion from the rank of S.I. To his substantive rank to A.S.I. With immediate effect". (underlined to supply emphasis). However, on 30-3-2000, another order was passed according to which the petitioner was dismissed from service. His departmental appeal was dismissed on 20-3-2003 and his appeal before the- Punjab Service Tribunal was dismissed on 6-1-2004.
2-A. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not have been punished twice on the same allegations.
In the criminal case aforesaid, he was acquitted vide judgment, dated 26-2-2002 but had already been punished by the departmental authority without any inquiry and without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General has defended the impugned judgment. He submits that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case by way of a compromise and payment of Diyat to the legal heirs of the deceased itself established the guilt of the petitioner and, therefore, no inquiry was necessary. Since the petitioner had not even submitted reply to the show-cause notice, he cannot complain that an opportunity of hearing was not granted to him.
4. We have considered the submissions. Although we appreciate the anxiety of the senior Police Officers in keeping the subordinates ranks clean and free of indiscipline and highhandedness yet we will like to emphasize that this objective is to be achieved in a manner which upholds rule of law. We are fully aware of the worst popular perception of the subordinate police officials, still they have to be dealt with in accordance with law.
5. In this case, we find that the show-cause notice was issued on 21-3-2000 and the basis thereof was registration of the criminal case aforesaid. The petitioner was allowed a period of seven days to reply to the show-cause notice but the first punitive order was passed on 22-3-2000 and it specifically stated that the reversion from the rank of S.-I. To his substantive rank of A.S.-I. Was by way of punishment. It, thus, amounted to reduction in rank and, therefore, he could not have been punished on the same allegation again. This is one aspect of the matter.
6. The second is that when the order of dismissal was passed, criminal case was pending and the sole basis of the dismissal order was registration of the criminal case. It may be noted that unless an accused person is found guilty an F.I.R. Remains unsubstantiated allegation and solely on that basis imposition of maximum penalty is again all cannons of fairness. After acquittal of the petitioner, even though the basis thereof was compromise, the allegations contained in the show- cause notice remained unsubstantiated. This Court, in a number of judgments, has laid down the rule that if disputed questions of fact are involved particularly in case of major penalty, a regular inquiry should be held so that an accused official is in a position to properly defend himself. We will like to observe that according to show cause notice, dated 21-3-2000, a period of seven days was allowed to submit reply, but the first penal order having been passed on 22-3-2000 there was no occasion for the petitioner to submit reply to the show cause notice. It was one of the considerations weighing with the said competent authority that the petitioner had not submitted reply to the show cause notice and this argument was even pressed before us by the learned Additional Advocate General. As per as other contentions of learned Additional Advocate General are concerned we do not find any merit because on the date of order of dismissal, the criminal case was pending which was finally decided on 26-2-2002.
7. For what has been stated above, we are of the view that the petitioner was punished without any evidence and without providing to him an opportunity to defend himself which could not be done.
Accordingly, we convert this petition into appeal; allow the same and direct reinstatement of the petitioner in his substantive rank as an A.S.I. However, he will remain under suspension. The competent authority will hold a fresh inquiry under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Order, dated 21-3-2000 will be treated as an order of reversion simplifiers to the substantive rank and not an order of penalty. The question of back-benefits is left to be decided by the competent authority at the time of final decision of the departmental proceedings. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.