' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Ghulam Mustafa and other ex-constables of Lahore Traffic Police, have filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act of 1974 against the order of respondent No. 2 and order dated 11th July, 1981 by respondent No. I.
2. By virtue of this appeal they have prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and they may be re-instated into service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that while posted on Traffic. Guard 'E' Division, Lahore the appellant Ghulam Mustafa, Muhammad Abbas and Zahoor Hussain were caught red handed while accepting illegal gratification of Rupees 20 from a truck driver. A case F. I. R. No. 391, dated 8th July, 1980 under section 161, P. P. C. Was registered at Police Station Misri Shah against them. While the case was sub judice the appellant were served with show-cause notices as to why they should not be awarded any of the major penalties as defined in sub-rule (4) of the Punjab Police (E. & D.)
Rules, 1975. The appellant pleaded that the case against them was falsely made which was cooked up at the instance of Head Clerk Allah Rakha formerly reader of S. P. Traffic Lahore. They were heard in person and were dismissed from services with effect from 6th August, 1980. Against tae said order they filed appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, who considered their defence as an after thought and maintained the orders of the dismissal so passed by the S. P. With regard to the plea of the appellants that they have been honourably acquitted in the criminal case the D.
L.G. Was of the opinion that as the D. S. P./P. D. S. P. Has pointed that the acquittal was not honourable, therefore, he would not consider such acquittal as honourable. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have also perused the record of this case with their assistance carefully. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that only crucial issue in this case would be whether the appellants have earned an honourable acquittal or they have been acquitted due to benefit of doubt. According to the learned counsel for the appellant that the D. I.-G. Was not justified to follow the opinion of the P.
0. S. P. Which was factually incorrect and should have rather himself read the judgment and arrived at a conclusion at his own opinion in an independent manner.
' The learned counsel has further submitted that the appellant from the very beginning had taken plea of false involvement in this case by Allah Rakha Head Constable therefore, it could not be considered afterthought by the D. I.-G. On the other hand the learned District Attorney submitted that he has nothing to say in this case as the judgment of the honourable Court is before the Court and it is the Tribunal to judge whether the acquittal of the appellant is honourable or not.
' We have duly considered the arguments so advanced before us and have perused the judgment carefully with the assistance of the learned counsel as well as by the learned District Attorney.
Paragraphs 7 and 9 of the judgment are very material in this case we would like to reproduce the same. In the paragraph 7 it has been observed as under : "It would be seen that no witness has come forward and no evidence has been produced to prove that Rs. 20 which were allegedly recovered from Zahoor Hussain Constable had been received by the three accused as illegal gratification from Muhammad Sharif P. W. Muhammad Sharif himself has not deposed at all that he had paid that amount as illegal gratification to the accused. On the other hand, he denied that he had made any complaint to the S. P. That the accused had received Rs. 20 as illegal gratification from him. He admitted his signatures on the application Bah. P A but has not corroborated its contents at all. In the circumstances, the simple recovery of Rs. 20 from the pocket of Zahoor Hussain is not enough to establish that the accused had demanded that money as illegal gratification from Muhammad Sharif P. W."
' Paragraph '8'.-In paragraph 8 it has been observed that there are material discrepancies in the deposition of the P. Ws. S. P. Stated that the statement of Muhammad Sharif was recorded by a member of his personal staff in his office whereas Allah Rakha Head Constable and. Ghulam Sarwar A. S. I. Contradicted the same by saying that this statement was recorded by the S. P. And was passed through Allah Rakha to the Police Station. Allah Rakha has deposed that he went from the Police Station to the S. P. Office but Ghulam Mustafa deposed that Allah Rakha returned from the Police Station to the spot. Again, according to Ghulam Mustafa A. S. I. The investigating officer came to the spot at about 3-00 p. m. Uptill which time the S.P. And other witness remained present at the spot. But the S. P. Deposed that he went from the place of occurrence first to his bungalow and then to his office from where he called the investigating officer on phone in his office. He further stated that the recovery from Zahoor Hussain was made by a member of his staff but Ghulam Mustafa and Allah Rakha stated that it was made by the S. P. Himself. All these discrepancies in the depositions of the P. Ws. Make the prosecution case quite doubtful. In paragraph 9 of his judgment the learned Judge has observed:- "The occurrence is stated to have been taken place at 5-30 a.m. But the F. I. R. Exh. P A was sent by the S. P. To the police station through Allah Rakha at 1.00 p. m. There is thus a long delay in the registration of the case which has remained unexplained. Ordinarily the case should have been registered with the police station shortly after the occurrence and its registration should not have taken a long period of 7 1/2 hours. This long delay in lodging of the report with the police station coupled with the above-mentioned discrepancies in the deposition of the witnesses and denial of gratification by the accused make the F.
1. R. To be absolutely unreliable."
5. In view of above we need not going into the legal objection that it was a case of corruption therefore enquiry under rule 6(4) was a must. The regular enquiry was a must as it has been held by this Tribunal as well as by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in its decision. What we find in this case is that S. P. Himself appeared as witness alongwith the other witnesses who were all police officials fully under his control, therefore, the possibility of these witnesses, being won over by the appellant I completely ruled nut. The learned Special Judge has analysed the evidence of these witnesses and has found it suffered from material discrepancies and run counter to each other. In this case with such state of affairs we are fully fortified to conclude that the Judgment of Special Anti-Corruption Judge has been given on merits and cannot be consider as a mechanical judgment or a judgment due to winning over of the witnesses by the appellant. We also further find that the complainant' in this case about whom it was said that he made complaint to the S. P.
Himself has not supported the prosecution case at all. It would be preposterous to assume that 3 humble constables were so influential that they could win over the complainant as well as could prevail upon the official P.Ws. So as to make concession in his favour. We are of the confirmed view that the judgment in this case of the Special Judge Anti. Corruption was given on merits and the acquittal of the accused appellants cannot be considered as unclean or blemished due to winning over of the P.Ws.
' We have not examined the P. D. S. P. In this case as we know that he had already termed this acquittal as not an honourable acquittal. We are of the confirmed opinion that we do not need any assistance from him, as the judgment is before us and we have scanned it thoroughly ourselves.
We are of the firm opinion that the case of the appellant was decided in his favour, when the learned Judge came to a positive conclusion that witnesses were not trustworthy and had contradicted each other on every " salient features of this case.
' We therefore, in view of the above analysis of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, set aside the impugned any justification and accept the appeal.
' We hereby direct the appellant should be re-instant I service with all back benefits.