' MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER), Since the facts in the titled appeals are identical so these are being disposed of by a Single judgement.
2. By his appeal, Azmat Ali, who was dismissed from service by Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, on 23rd January, 1979 has requested that the said impugned order be set aside and he be re-instated in service with all back benefits, as his representation was rejected by the D.1.G., Police vide order dated 26th February. 1980 and his further mercy petition has also met the same fate vide order. Of I.-G. Police dated 25th October, 1980.
3. In the other appeal of Muhammad Iqbal the appellant was digmissed froth service by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, vide order dated 23rd January, 1979 and his representation was also rejected by the D. I.-G. P. Vide order dated 26th February, 1980. As his mercy petition/ revision was also dismissed by the I. G. Police vide order dated 22nd December, 1980 so he has prayed that all the three impugned orders be set aside and he beinstated in service with all the back benefits.
4. The background of these cases is that the appellants were served with separate notices by way of General Police Proceedings under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 to show cause as to why they should not be dismissed from service on the allegation that they along with one Foot Constable Muhammad Nawaz were caught red handed by Deputy Superintendent of Police City in the University Chowk while accepting illegal gratification from Truck Drivers on 7th October, 1978 and a case F.I.R. No, 572 dated 7th October, 1978 under section 161, P. P.
C. Section 5, Prevention of Corruption Act 11 of 1949 and Articles 6/7 of Martial Law Order having been registered at Police Station Kotwali against them. The appellant submitted separate detailed replies to the respective show cause notices. However, they did not avail the opportunity of personal hearing although it was so offered to them. In the meanwhile the appellants were challaned and they faced their trial before Summary Military Court which convicted them to three months rigorous imprisonment each vide its order dated 21st January, 1979. Since the appellants did not prefer to avail the opportunity of personal hearing and the explanations offered by them to the show cause notices did not find favour with the Superintendent of Police so they were dismissed from service. Since their appeals/revisions were also rejected, hence they have preferred the present appeals praying for their re-instatement in service.
5. We have heard the parties. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that since the allegations of indulgence in corruption were levelled against the appellants so it was not justiciable on the part of the Competent Authority to dispense with the regular enquiry as enoisaged under rule 6(2) of the Punjab Police (E &D) Rules, 1975 and that the course adopted under rule 6(3) of the said Rules is illegal and unjustified. In this behalf reliance has been placed on the judgement of this Tribunal in the cases of Jamshed Anwar and Anisur Rahman Khan Inspectors of Police. It has also been argued that the perusal of the impugned orders of the Superintendent of Police would show that the appellants were dismissed from service for the reason that they were convicted by the Summary Militaey Court: and since the said conviction had been set aside by the Deputy Martial Law Administrator who, while countersigning the proceedings of the Summary Military Court, had set them aside and had directed that the appellants may be re-instated if permissible by the Departmental Rules/Regulations so. It has also been argued that the refusal of the D.M.L.A. To countersign the proceedings of the Summary Military Court amounts to honourable acquittal. As such, they are liable to be re-instated in service. Controverting the arguments addressed on behalf of the appellants the learned District Attorney, who was heard in the Chamber, relying on 1980 SCM R 260 has argued that both the appeals are time-barred and are liable to be dismissed on this score. To supplement his arguments he has submitted that under the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975 only one appeal against the order of Superintendent of Police is provided to the 0.1.-G., Police and there is no further appeal against the said order to I.-G. Police. Since the appellants did not file the present appeals within the prescribed period of 30 days after the rejection of their appeals by the D. L-G. Poliee so the appeals are time-barred. On merits he has submitted that the record reveals that the appellants were caught red-handed by a person not less, than that of the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police and that since their replies were not satisfactory and theydid not avail the opportunity of personal hearing so there was a clear case of misconduct against them.
He has also submitted that the very fact that the Summary Military Court after holding the trial of the appellants found the charge of corruption as correct denotes that the charges which are basis of show cause notices were proved against the appellant. So far as the order of D.M.L.A. Is concerned, he has submitted that it is just by way of compassion that the D.M.L.A. Did not countersign the proceedings and it does not amount to honourable acquittal at all to entitle the appellants for re-instatement.
6. We have patiently considered the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record minutely. It is a common case between the parties that the appellants were charged with the allegation of receiving illegal gratification from the Truck Drivers and they were surprised by the Deputy Superintendent of Police who arrested them. Instead of holding a regular enquiry through the appointment of an Enquiry Officer the Competent Authority dispensed with it and adopted the procedure of General Police Proceedings. We have on more than case occasion held in so many cases that the allegations amounting to misconduct required an elaborate enquiry to prove them and it is not open to the Authorities to dispense with the regular enquiry and adopt a shorter course of a mere show-cause notice. Since in those cases a shorter procedure by way of General Police Proceedings has been adopted so it is against the canons of natural justice and has deprived the appellants of their right of defence. The appellants had pleaded their innocence before the Superintendent of Police and had very rightly requested for the regular enquiry into the charges which was expedient for the dispensation of justice. Since the nature of charges required a thorough probe so we hold that the psocedure adopted by the Competent Authority for holding departmental proceedings against the appellant is illegal and against the spirit of the rules. We have also taken note of the order of the Superintendent of Police which is based on the order of conviction passed by the Summary Military Court. When the order of the conviction had not been countersigned by the D.M.L.A. It amounted to setting aside the said order. So there was no justification on the part of the Departmental Authorities in refusing to re-instate the appellants despite a clear directive by the D.M.L.A. In his order dated 11th March, 1979.
7. In view of above we accept the appeals and set aside the impugn-ed orders and the appellants shall be re-instated in service. Since the conduct of the appellants was not so unblemished so they shall not be eligible for any financial benefits for the period they remained out of service. There will be no order as to the costs.