1. ' ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is appeal filed by S. Zulfiqar Ali Shah, Ex-A. S. I. Against the orders of dismissal passed by S. P. City (Lahore) on 16th July, 1979 on the ground, of keeping one Mr. Janas Khan in unlawful custody and extracting a sum of Rs, 710 from him for his release, The appellant went in appeal to the D.I.G. Of Police who rejected it on 25th December, 1979.
2. ' It is alleged that on 17th May, 1979 S. Zulfiqar All Shah Ex-A. S. I. Police Station Misri Shah, Lahore Mr. Hulas Khan who was suspected of selling Charas got summoned to Police Station. On his personal search besides Rs, 410 about half tola of Charas were recovered. At about 6-00 p. m. The same day Messrs Gul Draz, Taus Khan and Moulvi Mohammad Nazir "so-called Notables of Misri Shah" are said to have secured Mr. Janas Khan's release by offering a bribe of Rs, 300 to the above-named A.
3. S. I. Who also grabed the amount of Rs, 410 recovered from the personal search of Mr. Jana: Khan.
4. On complaint by Mr. Janas Khan the Deputy Martial Law Administrator, Punjab, constituted an Enquiry Team consisting of Major Zahoor Elahi Yazdani and Zubair Masood, Magistrate to conduct an enquiry. On 20th May, 1979, S. Zulfiqar Ali Shah, A. S. I., got wind of the complaint against him and said to have returned Rs, 410 to Mr. Jam Khan with the promise to pay the balance of Rs, 300 a little later. That amount was paid on 24th May, 1979 in the presence of the three Notables mentioned earlier.
5. ' The Enquiry Committee, on 25th May, 1979, made the following recommendation :- "As the charges of harassm ent, accepting bribery and keeping Mr. Janas Khan in Police Station for five hours without any reason, against A. S. I. Zulfiqar Ali Shah have been proved, it is recommended that he should be tried for these charges in a Military Court."
6. ' On receipt of the enquiry report S. P. City issued a show-cause notice under rule 6(3)(a) of the Punjab Police E. & D. Rules, 1975 to S. Zulfiqar Ali Shah, appellant. The notice could not be served upon the appellant who had proceeded on medical leave. Considering it a case of deliberate avoidance of service of notice, the S. P. City passed an ex parte order of dismissal of the appellant.
7. ' The appellant went in appeal to the D. I.-G. Of Police, who after giving him personal hearing dismissed the appeal on 25th December, 1979. Hence this appeal was filed before us on 17th January, 1980.
8. ' The appellant has raised the following points in appeal before this Tribunal :-
(i) The Respondent No, 2 (S. P. City) did not observe proper procedure prescribed under the Punjab Police E. & D. Rules, 1975. He neither appointed any Enquiry Officer nor he provided the appellant any opportunity of defending himself.
(ii) That his services were terminated by respondent No, 2 merely on the basis of the report of the M. L. Enquiry Team in which he had not been properly associated nor the contents of the report were ever disclosed to him.
(iii) That both the respondents have ignored the fact that the appellant was available at home (?) for service of notice and as 4 matter of fact no serious and valid attempt was made to get the show-cause notice served upon him. Ex pane proceedings had, therefore, been taken in an illegal manner for which there was no justification whatsoever.
(iv) That the so-called Notables on whose statements the Enquiry Team (set up by the M. L.
9. Authorities) had relied are notorious characters and their statements had no value. Maulvi Nasir Ahmed a dismissed Constable was an ex-constable who had suffered one year rigorous imprisonment. No report had been called from Inspector Mirza Maqbool Beg immediate boss of the appellant about his conduct or character.
10. ' As regards the first point raised by the appellant, respondent No, 2 did not deem it necessary to appoint an Enquiry Officer when he had already received the enquiry report from the Enquiry Team set up by the M. L. Authorities. He, therefore, took action under rule 6(3)(a) of the Punjab Police E. & D. Rules, 1975. There is, however, a lot of force in other points raised by the appellant, that the service of show-cause notice was defective and that the appellant had been denied due opportunities of defence as the contents of the enquiry report by the M. L. Team were never disclosed to him. At best that report could be treated as preliminary enquiry and in the absence of any proper departmental enquiry the, appellant was entitled to an opportunity to controvert the contents of the report on the basis of which alone he had been penalised.
11. ' Ex parte action taken against the appellant does not appear to be justified. The show-cause notice should have been pasted on the outer door of the appellant's residence or sent through registered post and only B thereafter ex parte proceedings could be taken.
12. ' Since the departmental proceedings and the orders passed on the same basis, suffer from the disregard of express requirement of relevant Punjab Police E. & D. Rules, 1975, therefore, the same are set aside and the case is remanded for fresh decision to the S. P. (City), Lahore.