Abdul Razzaq ex-A.-S.I. Has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Superin--tendent of Police, Bahawalpur, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Bahawalpur Range, Bahawalpur and Inspector- General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders passed by the respondent No. 1 and subsequent appellate order: passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 be set aside and be re- instated into service.
3., Brief facts of the case are that one Sohna son of Allah Jiwaya, resident of Sawaiwala P. S. Sadar, Bahawalnagar made a complaint to the effect that the appellant Abdul Razzaq while conducting investigation of a case under section 366/376 has accepted illegal grantification for a sum of Rs.
5,000 from one of the accused on the promise that he would challan one accused, Allah Bakhsh, and let of others. According to the prosecution version a sum of Rs. 5,000 was paid to the appellant.
Few days later the appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 3,000 more with the promise that he will hand over the abductee as well to him. This sum was also paid but the appellant did not fulfil his promise and challaned the accused. A preli--minary enquiry into the allegation was held by A. S. P., who held the appellant guilty of corruption. Then the District Magistrate Bahawalnagar was moved by the Superintendent of Police, Bahawalnagar to grant permission to proceed departmentally against the appellant. The District Magistrate by granting such permission also directed that case be registered against the appellant. In this case regular departmental enquiry was held under the Punjab Police E&D Rules, of 1975. The appellant was served with charge-sheet and the statement of allegations. The appellant's reply was found unsatisfactory therefore, the Superintendent of Police appointed an Enquiry Officer who recorded the statement of 6 P. Ws. And 11 D. Ws. And held the appellant guilty of the charges so framed against him. In the mean--time the appellant was transferred to Bahawalpur, therefore the Superin--tendent of Police, Bahawalpur served the appellant with a show-cause notice for a major punishment. The appellant submitted a written reply anal was also heard in person. The charge of corruption was proved against him in both the preliminary as well as in regular departmental proceedings. The appellant was, therefore, dismissed from service on 12-6-1980. He sub--mitted an appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Bahawalpur Range, Bahawalpur who taking a lenient view converted the punishment of dismissal into that of compulsory retirement from the date of dismissal. The appellant then submitted revision-cum-mercy petition to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore who rejected the same
4. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record carefully. The learned counsel for the appellant had argued that as the Court of Special Judge; Anti-Corruption, Bahawalpur has acquitted him from the charges which were levelled against him under section 249-A, Cr. P. C. Therefore, the appellant cannot be compulsory retired from services. For this main argument on which learned counsel for appellant has relied, we have seen the judgment of Anti- Corruption Judge in this case and find that though the learned Judge acquitted the appellant for lack of evidences but concluded as under :- "Thus, in my view although the culpability of the act of the accused has not been proved in the eye of law, his conduct is not absolutely above board and the allegations against him were not without any substance.
He, therefore, acquitted him under section 249-A of the Cr. P. C. Giving him the benefit of doubt only.
5. In the above circumstances I have no reason to interfere with the two well-considered judgments of the S. P. And the D.I.-G. I am also in complete accord with the finding of the D.I.-G.
That the judgment of the Anti-Corruption Judge which has been placed on the record by the appel--lant does not exonerate him of the charges.
6. I have carefully looked into the enquiry proceedings of this report and find that these have been taken in accordance with the rules so laid down in this behalf and extending full opportunities to the appellant to defend himself by producing D. Ws. As well as by being heard in person. Both enquiry reports preliminary as well as departmental held by two gazetted officers have found the appellant guilty of the charges of corruption. He should thank his stars that the Deputy Inspector- General of Police taking into consideration the length of service rendered by him into the Police force converted the major penalty of dismissal into that of compulsory retirement.
7. In view of the above I do not find any reason to interfere with the two well-considered impugned of orders and proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merits.