' S. HAFIZUR RAHMAN (MEMBER).- In this case the appellant is up against two charges: that while posted as Pay Bill Clerk for lower subordinates in the office of the D.
1. G. Police, Lahore Range, from June to August 1977, he drew house-rent allowance in favour of a large number of young recruits who were actually living in Police Lines/Police Stations/Police Posts/ Police Camps and were not entitled to the allowance; and he was alleged to have been accepting Rs, 25 to Rs, 30 per month from each recruits as illegal gratification. For these two acts the appellant was dismissed from service vide order dated 5th December, 1979, issued by the Assistant 1.-G., Police (Establishment) and his appeal to the Additional I.-G., Police was rejected on 9th April, 1980. The appellant contended that whereas the second charge (of accepting illegal gratification) was false the first was not a charge at all because the drawal of this allowance was permitted under the rules.
2. This Tribunal has already given its verdict on the first charge in the case of Mohammad Tufail v.
D. L-G., Police, Lahore Range, etc., in Appeal No, 234/453 of 1979, decided on 16th March, 1980, and held that recruits of the Additional Police Force having less than three years' service and living in temporary accommodation provided by the Police Department, as in the instant case, were entitled to house rent allowance because single accommodation could not be equated with family accommodation. Therefore, in the light of that decision we hold that the present appellant was not guilty of misconduct on that score.
3. In respect of the second charge, i,e, accepting illegal gratification from the recruits, we notice that on the basis of a prima facie case, no regular enquiry was held against the appellant to determine whether he was guilty or not. True, a show-cause notice was issued and the appellant given personal hearings by the competent authority as well as the appellate authority, but the enquiry seems to have been dispensed with. This Tribunal has held consistently, and the learned counsel for the appellant submitted a large number of citations to remind us of these decisions, that a opportunity must be held wherever corruption is alleged so that is left in no doubt. In the instant case too we feel that an enquire should have been held. For this purpose, we remand the case to the Assistant I.-G., Police (Establishment) so that a regular enquiry under the Police E & D Rules can be held, if the authority so feels necessary.
4. Meantime, since we have accepted the plea of the appellant in so far as the main charge of drawing house rent allowance for recruits is concerned, we set aside the two impugned orders-of the Asstt. I. G. P., and the Addl.
1.-G. P.-and direct that the appellant shall be re-instated in service w. e. f. The date he was dismissed from service. As for his back benefits of pay, allowances, etc. The payment of these will depend on the result of the enquiry and the decision thereon by the competent authority.