' Through this judgment an appeal filed by Mr. Noman Jillani appellant under Section 04 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 is being decided.
2. Brief facts of the case are that; CPO Rawalpindi issued show-cause notice Bearing No. 1799/PS dated 25.11.2011 to the present appellant as follows, "that you have been found involved in case FIR No. 445 dated 21.11.2011 under Sections 371-A/371-B, PPC PS industrial area, Islamabad. Your such act is quite reprehensible and comes in the ambit of severe misconduct"
3. The CPO Rawalpindi vide Order No. 22-24/PS dated 5.01.2012 dismissed the present appellant from service with immediate effect and observed that his suspension period shall be treated as such. The said order passed by the CPO Rawalpindi was challenged by filing departmental appeal which was adjudicated upon by the RPO Rawalpindi region and ultimately the order passed by the CPO Rawalpindi was upheld and the appeal filed by the present appellant was rejected vide order dated 22.10.2012. After the rejection of appeal, the present appellant filed revision petitioner before the Inspector General of Police, Punjab and the same was also rejected on 21.03.2013. Hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been dismissed from service on the registration of false criminal case and that too against the law laid down by, the apex Court reported in 1997 SCMR Page No. 192; that the impugned orders were passed by the authorities on the basis of surmises and conjecture; no regular inquiry was initiated by the department before passing the major penalty and the appellant has been condemned unheard; the respondents did not follow the instructions of IG Police Punjab dated 17.06.2008 and 26.05.2009 regarding holding of regular inquiry. The present appellant has been acquitted by the competent Court of law, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the authorities/respondents were bad in law. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned orders be set aside.
5. On the other hand learned Deputy District Attorney opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is contended that the appellant was caught red handed alongwith women of bad character, as sufficient incriminating evidence was available with the department. Hence, there was no need to hold regular inquiry. Impugned orders passed by the authorities challenged in this appeal were rightly passed, hence, they cannot be set aside. As appeal is meritless, therefore, it be dismissed, and the impugned orders be upheld.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Before dilating upon the facts of the present case, this tribunal feels necessary to highlight that the department/respondents has the powers under Section 5(1)(a) of PEEDA Act, 2006 to dispense with the inquiry. Section 5(1)(a) of the act ibid bound down the competent authority to proceed itself against the accused by issuing the show-cause notice under Section 07 and for reasons to be recorded in writing, dispense with the inquiry. In the present case while issuing show-cause notice, the provision of Section 5(1)(a) were not kept in view. At no point of time the respondents demonstrated that they were having sufficient and un-rebutted incriminating evidence against the appellant justifying their act for dispensing with the inquiry. If the competent authority is not having lucid and incriminating evidence against the appellant, holding of regular inquiry would be sine qua non. I am fortified in my above view from the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in 2012 PLC (CS) 787 titled Deputy Inspector General Punjab Investigation Lahore Vs. Asghar Ali.
8. On the complaint of Muhammad Ishaq Sub Inspector Police Station industrial area district Islamabad criminal case FIR No. 445 was registered on 21.11.2011 under Sections 371-A/371-B, PPC.
The complainant of the said case received spy information that car Bearing No. 866/RI having black windows/glasses was departed from the house of one Shamim aunty and if raid was conducted, prostitutes could be apprehended. Under the spy information, the complainant of the said case constituted raiding party and followed the said car which was intercepted at Street No. 11 in front of girls college. The complainant alongwith his entourage checked the car, on the front seat son of said Shamim aunty namely Kamran was sitting, however the appellant was driving the said car, on the rear seat one Ghazala Kiran wife of Yasir Qureshi and one Sitara bibi were present. The son of Shamim aunty namely Kamran managed his escape. After investigation, report u/S. 173 Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 was sent to the Court of Mr. Humayun Dilawar, judicial magistrate Section 30, Islamabad who after the trial, vide his order dated 17.09.2012, acquitted all the accused.
Record of this case/appeal manifests that no regular inquiry in this case was initiated by the respondents/department before inflicting major penalty which was sine qua non. It is settled principle of law that dismissal from service due to pendency of criminal case is not warranted by law unless such official is declared guilty by the competent Court of law. In the instant case as mentioned above, competent Court of law acquitted the appellant alongwith his co-accused. The available record does not show that order passed by the Court referred above was challenged before the higher forum or the said order had been set aside. It is also settled law that when major penalty was to be awarded by the department upon the civil servant then proper show-cause notice, charge sheet, statement of allegation and other incriminating evidence must be provided to the accused, which has not been done in the instant case. The procedure adopted by the respondents in this case was arbitrary and contrary to the law as laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court of this country. Taking legal light from the dictum laid down in the case of Tariq Mehmood VS. DPO, Toba Tek Singh etc reported in PLD 2008 S.0 451, this appeal is accepted, impugned orders are set aside with the result that the present appellant shall be deemed to be reinstated in service.
Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegation, the case is remanded to the competent authority to initiate regular inquiry against the appellant, follow proper procedure and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. The question of back benefits is left open to be decided by the competent authority.