' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Hashmat Ali ex-A. S. I. Has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, for setting aside the order of Respondent No, 1 dated 12th June, 1980 and the appellate order of Respondent No, 2 dated 17th December, 1980, received by him on 23rd December, 1980.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service as ASI Bahawalnagar vide order of Respondent No, 2 dated 7th March, 1978. He was transferred from Bahawalnagar to Bahawalpur and placed on 2 years' probation. A case under sections 452, 307, 365, 148, 149, P P C was registered against the appellant alongwith other persons vide F I R 26/80 dated 28th April, 1980 at P. S. Derawar District Bahawalpur. In consequence of the registration of the said case a show cause notice was issued on 5th May, 1980 (Annex. B) which was followed by another show-cause notice, dated 1st June.
1980. The appellant submitted his reply but was awarded the penalty of dismissal from service on 12th June, 1980 by respondent No,
1. He filed a representation before Respondent No, 2 but the same was rejected. Hence this appeal,
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well the- learned District Attorney and have perused the record of the case carefully with their assistance. The learned counsel for the appellant has produced before us the judgment dated 19th May, 1981 passed by Mr. Qudrutullah Tariq, Magistrate Section 30 (Judi) Bahawalpur with regard to the said case so registered which resulted into dismissal of the appellant, to show that the appellant has been acquitted alongwith other accused under section 249 of the Cr. P. C. As there was no evidence of any Sort to warrant his conviction, It has been prayed that on the strength of the judgment, appellant is entitled to be restored in service.
4. The learned counsel in this matter has relied on our earlier judgment in the case of Anisur Rehman Khan v. I G P and submitted that the law laid down by this tribunal as well as by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, makes it obligatory on the competent authority to proceed against a civil servant by holding an independent enquiry under rule 6(4) of the Police Rules if the said competent authority does not think it proper to wait for the judicial verdict against such civil servant whose case has been put up for trial for alleged offences against him. According to the learned counsel in this case the competent authority has only acted on the result of the investigation conducted into the case by the local Police on the strength of F. I. R. Without waiting for the result of the judicial verdict. Therefore, it was necessary for the competent authority in view of the law laid down as well as in accordance with the rules of natural justice to satisfy himself whether the allegation so levelled against the appellant were justified by giving him a chance to defend himself.
5. On the other hand the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department has challenged the claim of the appellant that he was entitled to regular enquiry wherein he could rebut the allegations levelled against him and has submitted that the investigation of the local Police had produced sufficient data with the competent authority to take action against the appellant by dispensing with the regular enquiry under section 6(3) of the Police Rules.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by both the parties and would discuss the same as under while going through annexure Eat page.10 of the file i,e, reply to the show-cause notice submitted by the appellant, we find that the appellant has claimed that he was under treatment of Medical Officer, Police Lines vide Report No, 26 dated 27th April, 1980 and reported back for duty vide Report No, 7 after a period of 4 days under the medical advice. In this way the appellant has put-forward a plea of alibi which according to him was fully supported by a number of witnesses like Mohammad Sarwar Rana, Ch. Mohammad Tufail, Ch. Dil Mohammad, Dr. M. A. Wasim. He made further plea before the competent authority that even from 30th April, 1980 to 16th May, 1980, he was indoor patient and was under treatment. The appellant in his reply to show-cause notice had referred to a pertinent point in his favour to show that although there is a mention of firing by his Revolver in the F. I. R. But the examination of the chamber of the said Revolver would show that no such fire was made. In these circumstances the appellant requested the competent authority to wait for the judicial verdict in his case which would be a detailed assessm ent of facts through a regular trial, either to prove the appellant guilty or innocent. The record of this case reveals that despite this submission and demands of the appellant the competent authority proceed under rule 6(3) of the Police Rules by dispensing with any enquiry of the sort and dismissed the appellant on the plea that such like allegations against the Police officials bring bad name to the Police Department. Similar was the situation in the case of Anisur Rehman Khan versus IGP in appeal wherein we elaborately discussed this legal issue and legal obligation of the competent authority vis-a-vis the civil servant involved in such matters and came to the conclusion that it was a must for the competent authority to hold an independent enquiry in case it thought that the judicial verdict may be protracted and to wait the result of the same, would not be in the interest of dispensation of expeditious justice.
7. We are aware of a number of cases wherein above-mentioned procedure has been adopted and we can cite one which is in our knowledge and that is of Qamaruz Zaman, Inspector Police who was involved in a murder case, sentenced to death by the Sessions Court and remained with death cell for 2 years awaiting the final verdict of the High Court but he was never suspended or removed from service. As soon as he was acquitted by the High Court the IGP took no time to restore him to service. Under these circumstances and in view of a number of examples out of which one has been cited above we are of the considered opinion that in the case of Hashmat All appellant particularly in the face of the points so raised by him in his reply to show-cause notice that is alibi as well as other legal issues the competent authority was under obligation to satisfy itself by holding an independent enquiry under rule 6(4) of the Police Rules and also to satisfy itself whether the plea so raised by the appellant was of any value or not. We are of the considered opinion that when no regular enquiry has been conducted by the competent authority to hold the appellant guilty the verdict of the judicial court would be binding on it, till such time the same was set aside by the High Court.
8. The result is we proceed to accept his appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the appellant be reinstated in-service with all back benefits under the rules until the respondents are in a position to get the order of acquittal passed by the competent court of Jurisdiction, set aside by the High Court.