' Through this judgment appeal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 filed by the appellant Ghulam Abbas sub inspector No. 50-R against orders dated 16.06.2011 order of the departmental appellate authority dated 03.11.2011 and revisional order dated 30.1.2012 passed by Additional Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore is being decided.
2. Brief facts as unfolded from the memorandum of appeal are that it was alleged that the appellant had received Rs. 17500/-from the complainant of case FIR No. 115/2008 under Sections 457/380, PPC registered at PS Tamman District Chakwal and later on settled compromise when the complainant of the said case submitted an application before the Anti-Corruption establishment authority. The appellant controverted the said allegation; nevertheless he was awarded major punishment of compulsory retirement by the order of the CPO, Rawalpindi. The departmental appellate authority as well as revisional authority also rejected the claim of the appellant and upheld the order dated 16.06.2011. Hence, this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned orders are against law and facts and have been passed on the basis of no evidence; the complainant of the case namely Muhammad Saleem Iqbal on 06.01.2009 gave an affidavit whereby he exonerated the appellant from the commission of the alleged crime; the complainant in his affidavit also contended that he did not want to pursue his application filed before the Anti-Corruption Establishment against the present appellant and others; there is no incriminating evidence available with the respondents for inflicting the impugned punishment; occurrence as narrated in the said FIR got lodged by the complainant was found false by four investigation officers, including the appellant; in order to malign the appellant and others, false application was submitted before the Anti-Corruption Establishment; appellant is innocent and did not commit any misconduct, no charge against him was proved as their is no evidence of taking bribe amount from the complainant; impugned orders are based on surmises and conjectures, hence can not sustain; learned counsel prayed that appeal be accepted, impugned orders be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service with all back benefits. Learned counsel for the appellant referred 2013 PLC (C.S) 1059, 2012 SCMR 45.
4. Conversely, learned DDA vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned orders. He contended that the appellant has committed heinous offence by taking illegal gratification from the complainant for arrest of the accused namely Shakeel Ahmad but carried out false investigation when the complainant moved an application before Anti-Corruption Establishment, the appellant after mounting pressure on him settled compromise hence the allegation levelled against him stood proved Respondents while passing the impugned orders kept in view all the incriminating material available with the department and rightly, lawfully awarded the impugned punishment. He next contended that as the appellant did not have clean slate to his credit, not entitled to any leniency. As the appeal is without any substance, therefore it be dismissed and the impugned orders are up held.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Perusal of the record manifests that after registration of the case FIR No. 115/2008 P.S Tamman District Chakwal under Sections 457/380 PPC the investigation of the case remained entrusted to Mazhar Hussain ASI who found the accused of the said FIR namely Shakeel Ahmad innocent.
Thereafter, Ghulam Abbas present appellant as well as DSP/SDPO Tallagang also held the said accused Shakeel Ahmad innocent. Available record manifests that the said accused Shakeel Ahmad filed petition under Section 22A & 22B, Cr.P.C. Which was disposed off by additional Sessions Judge Tallagang on 06.02.2009 in which the learned ASJ observed as follows: "It has been reported by the SHO of Police Station Tamman that the accused is found innocent during, investigation conducted by Mazhar Hussain ASI and Ghulam Abbas Musarat SI and on 20.12.2008 the police file is filed and being so the petitioner is not required for further investigation.
' In the circumstances when the petitioner is not required for investigation it is appropriate to disposed of the petition with the direction to the SHO Police Station Tamman not to harass the petitioner in any matter whatsoever. However, if the petitioner is required for some investigation the SHO concerned shall strictly comply with the dictate of the law. The file be consigned to the record".
' This is established on record that the above said accused was declared innocent in investigation carried out by the present appellant as well as other police officials mentioned above and prima facie it looks that allegation levelled by the complainant on the present appellant of taking bribe of Rs. 17500/- is to put him under pressure for some favor for the complainant cannot be ruled out especially when it is not specifically mentioned that on what occasion the present appellant claimed the alleged bribe amount from him and in whose presence. Nothing is available on record as to whether the complainant of the said FIR at any point of time produced independent witnesses to corroborate his contention that the appellant took bribe from him. If for the sake of arguments it is presumed that ' the present appellant carried out spurious investigation in the above said criminal case, the competent Court of law could have scanned/peruse the evidence produced by the complainant and his, witnesses at the time of trial, of the accused Shakeel Ahmad. During arguments learned counsel for the appellant submitted copy of judgment passed by Learned Magistrate Section-30 Talagang in case titled Muhammad Saleem Iqbal us. Shakeel Ahmad regarding the same occurrence which reflects that the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 06.12.2012, acquitted the accused Shakeel Ahmad from the offence as alleged by the complainant in the FIR Bearing No. 115 dated 16.08.2008.
7. An affidavit submitted by the complainant Saleem Iqbal showing that he had settled his dispute with the appellant and others is not sufficient incriminating evidence on the basis of which major penalty of compulsory retirement from service could be imposed upon the present appellant.
Inquiry report conducted by DSP, Administration, Rawalpindi available in the file manifests that the complainant Saleem Iqbal appeared before the inquiry officer on 02.07.2010 and admitted that he produced stamp paper Bearing No. 897 dated 06.01.2009 before the Anti-Corruption Establishment District Chakwal as he did not want to pursue his matter any further. Had the appellant taken bribe amount of Rs. 17500/- from the complainant, the complainant could have deposed before DSP, administration Rawalpindi or produced some other lucid incriminating evidence on the subject and in absence of that, it (sic) not be presumed that the appellant; took bribe from him and thereafter by arranging settlement, allegation against the appellant stood proved. Prima facie the observation given by the inquiry officer referred above is based on surmises and conjectures. The impugned orders passed by the respondents challenged in this appeal have been gone through time and again and I feel no hesitation to say that then pimpusg:d on the basis are and the result of surmises, conjectures d have of no incriminating an criminating material hence illegal, coram non judice and can not sustain. In view of what has been discussed above appeal in hand is accepted, impugned orders are set aside and the appellant is reinstated in service with immediate effect. He is also entitled to take all back benefits.