' MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, MEMBER.-Muhammad Ashraf, ex-Foot Constable has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act of 1974 against the order dated 6th December, 1980 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jhang whereby he was dismissed from service w.e.f.
11th November, 1980 and against appellate order dated 11th July, 1981 passed by the D.I.-G. Police Sargodha whereby his appeal was rejected.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that both the impugned orders be set aside and he be re- instated into service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a notice under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 on 13th November, 1980 to show cause as to why major punishment including dismissal from service be not imposed upon him on the allegation that he alongwith Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed Constable of Police Station Kotwali, Jhang went to the bicycle shop of Sh. Muhammad Amjad, Rail Bazar, Jhang. By abusing his official position and maligning the S.P. By telling the said Sh. Muhammad Amjad, that he was sent by S.P. And he wanted to purchase a bicycle for him, and persuaded him to sell the same at the concessional rate even below the fixed price. On complaint by the said Sh. Muhammad Amjad, the appellant and his co-accused Iftikhar Ahmad were summoned by the S.P. In the presence of Sh. Muhammad Amjad and were confronted with each other when Sh. Muhammad Amjad reiterated his complaint. In this background a show- cause notice was served to him which he replied promptly. His explanation did not find favour with the S.P. Who after affording hearing to him, dismissed him from service. Since his appeal also failed with the D.I.-G. Hence present appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned D.A. Assisted by Mr. Muhammad Anayat, P.I., Jhang and have also perused the record. It has been argued that the appellant is not guilty of misconduct because he only wanted to purchase a bicycle on a control rate. He has further submitted that the S.P. Being the complainant could not sit in judgment and be a judge in his own cause. On the other hand the learned D.A. Has controverted the arguments of the appellant and has argued that mere fact that he took along Foot Constable Iftikhar Ahmad in Police Uniform from Police Station Kotwali, Mang to the shop of Sh. Muhammad Amjad indicates that the appellant has misconducted himself. With regard to the action taken by the S.P. He has argued that the said S.P. Passed the order on the statement on Oath of Sh. Muhammad Amjad made in the presence of the appellant and no other conclusion could have been drawn but for the one recorded by the S.P. And no prejudice appears to have been caused to the appellant.
5. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have carefully perused the record with their assistance. The crux of the matter is that the appellant went to the shop of. Sh Muhammad Amjad for the purpose of purchasing of bicycle on control rate. It is but natural for a man to try to get things from the market at the control price in this age of inflation, particularly when the days are very bard for the poorly paid civil servants. There is no evidence of persuading a shopkeeper to sell the cycle at price less than the controlled price. Demanding a cycle on controlled price does not amount to misconduct. However, record does not show that the appellant in fact did purchase bicycle which is a strong circumstance in favour of the appellant that he failed to get the bicycle on controlled price despite his beseeching the shopkeeper for the purpose.
6. The result of the above discussion is that the appellant is no guilty of misconduct. Therefore, we proceed to set aside both impugned order and accept the appeal. The appellant shall be re- instated in service. As the conduct of the appellant is not absolutely free from blemish, so he shall not be paid over and above what he has already received, during the intervening period.
7. The parties to bear their own costs.