' Through this judgment, appeal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 filed by Muhammad Nazir S/o Muzaffar Khan Ex-sub Inspector No. 741/R Rawalpindi Rio Vill Badra, Tehsil Fateh Jang, Attock is being decided.
2. Summa of the case are that CPO, Rawalpindi issued Show-Cause Notice No. 663/PS dated 2.8.2011 against the present appellant as he found the appellant guilty of misconduct. Vide order dated 8.9.2011 CPO, Rawalpindi awarded the appellant major penalty of compulsory retirement from service. Against this order, departmental appeal was preferred which was rejected by RPO, Rawalpindi vide his order dated 25.11.2011. Thereafter appellant filed revision petition which was also rejected on 17.3.2012 by Additional Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore. Hence this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant was neither served show-cause notice nor he was heard by Respondent No. 3 CPO, Rawalpindi in person on 7.9.2011, appellant proceeded to Mardan (K.P.K.) vide daily Diary No. 64, dated 7.9.2011 in connection with investigation of case FIR No. 466/11 under Section 489-F, PPC Police Station New Town, Rawalpindi, where the accused of the said case namely Imran Shah was arrested on 8.9.2011; as the appellant was not present at Rawalpindi, therefore no question, of his hearing arose and the appellant has been condemned unheard; under Police Rules Chapter 22 & 25, the SHO was responsible to run the affairs of the Police Station and act as Chief Investigating Officer, he prepared the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. And recommended the case FIR No. 566/11 for cancellation; during the investigation of case FIR No. 566/11, it came to light that the complainant had received Rs.
9,00,000/- against Cheque No. 1264271 vide receipt duly signed by witnesses; Respondent No. 3 CPO, Rawalpindi relied on the preliminary inquiry report submitted by the SP Headquarters, Rawalpindi who merely on basis of conjectures and presumptions without any proof recommended departmental action against the appellant for acceptance of Rs 50,000/- from the complainant; the inquiry conducted by the SP headquarters would be at the most fact finding inquiry and no reliance on the said inquiry be placed, as the appellant did not join in the said proceedings; major penalty in this case has been passed with out holding regular inquiry which was essential;- impugned orders are void, coram non judice hence, can not be sustained. Learned counsel- prayed that appeal be accepted, impugned orders be set aside and the appellant be reinstated with all back benefits.
4. Conversely, learned DDA strongly opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel and supported the impugned orders. It is contended that allegation against the appellant is of serious nature, he after taking bribe of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant of the case FIR No. 566/11 registered the same and after few hours of the arrest of the accused let him go. He was served show-cause notice dated 2.8.2011 by the competent authority, appellant submitted his reply and on 7.9.2011 the Respondent No. 3 after hearing the appellant in his. Orderly room lawfully passed the order dated 8.9.2011. As the appellant committed heinous misconduct, therefore, he is not entitled for any leniency and prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. On 2.8.2011 CPO, Rawalpindi issued Show-Cause Notice No. 663/PS against the present appellant as follows "complainant Umar Snah s/o Abdul Badshah r/o H. No. 1-93 Alam Khan Road Chachi Mohallah Rawalpindi submitted an application before the undersigned alleging therein that a cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/- given by Fayyaz Farid was dishonored by Allied Bank Limited. He submitted an application to you alongwith dishonored cheque but you kept pending his application with you for four months. Later on registered a criminal case vide FIR No. 566 dated 27.6,2011 after taking bribe of Rs. 50,000/. After registration of case you arrested accused Fayyaz Farid but let him go after four hours. "Para No. 3 of the show-cause notice manifest that the CPO being competent authority had decided to proceed against the present appellant departmentally under the provision of Section 5(1)(a) of the PEEDA Act, 2006 without holding an inquiry through inquiry officer by issuing a show-cause notice under Section (7) of the Act ibid as the CPO had sufficient documentary evidence against the present appellant. Basic order dated 8.9.2011 passed by CPO, Rawalpindi manifests that pursuant to show-cause notice Bearing No. 663/PS dated 2.8.2011, he heard the appellant in his orderly room on 7.9.2011 and also gone through all the relevant papers including reply to the show-cause notice for awarding the impugned punishment of compulsory retirement from service against the present appellant. Annex (J) is a copy of ruput Bearing No. 64 dated 7.9.2011 P.S New Town, Rawalpindi, shows that the present appellant proceeded to district Mardan Peshawar (K.P.K.) at 7:25 a.m. Alongwith Wajad Hussain Constable No. 7813 in connection with the investigation of case Bearing No. 466/11 dated 28.5.2011 under Section 489-F, PPC registered at Police Station New Town, Rawalpindi Annex (K) is an application which the present appellant addressed to the concerned authorities for the transfer of the accused arrested by him in case FIR No. 466/2011 mentioned above from the province of K.P.X. To the province of Punjab. Said application was allowed by the order of the Judge on 8.9.2011. Annex (M) is also perused by this Tribunal which is report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Prepared in case FIR No. 566/2011 dated 27.6.2011 under Section 489-F, PPC Police Station New Town Rawalpindi whereby the said case was cancelled by the order of the Inspector/SHO New Town Rawalpindi dated 7.8.2011. Annex
(N) is a photocopy of receipt manifest that the complainant of the case FIR No 566/2011 received Rs. 9,00,000/- in lieu of cheque Bearing No. 1264271 drawn on Allied Bank. The above mentioned documentary evidence was neither considered by the CPO, Rawalpindi nor he discussed the same in his order dated 8.9.2011. The appellate authority of the department as well as the revisional authority also did not keep in their mind the above said documents produce by the appellant before this Tribunal despite the fact that the present appellant while filing departmental appeal high lighted the same in his ground (C). The inquiry report available on the file as Annex (0) reflects that the SP headquarters, Rawalpindi initiated the inquiry proceedings in the form of questions answers. The procedure adopted by SP headquarters, Rawalpindi is alien to law. It is settled principal of law that inquiry by way of questionnaire without examining the witnesses if any in support of charge or defence, are not sacrosanct. I am fortified in my above view of the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan laid down in case of Jan Muhammad vs. General Manager Karachi Telecommunication Region Karachi reported in 1993 SCM R 1440. This is also settled principal of law that whenever the controversial question regarding evidence is involved an opportunity of An cross-examination has to be given to the civil servant and for that v proper course is to initiate proper and fullfieged inquiry, otherwise the findings recorded will be based more on conjecture then on evidence. Reliance is placed on 1993 SCM R 603 titled Alam Gir vs. bFO, Multan. In view of what has been discussed above this appeal is accepted, impugned orders are set aside and the appellant is reinstated in service with immediate effect.
7. The case of the appellant is however remanded back to the CPO, Rawalpindi for taking denovo proceedings and disposal of the same in accordance with law, hence this Tribunal eschewed itself from discussing the merits of the case.