ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).--Ali Ahmad, ex-Constable, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Bahawalnagar, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Bahawalpur and the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 13-5-1980 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bahawalnagar wherein he was dismissed from service, revision orders passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police and the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore respectively confirming the said order be set aside and he be re-instated in service with all the ensuing benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Ali Ahmad, ex---Constable was posted at Bahawalnagar. During the course of investigation of case F. I. R. No. 157/80, dated 24-3-1980 under section 4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, Police Station Saddar, Bahawainagar, accused namely Atta Muhammad son of Ahmed Din and Atta Muhammad son of Khurshid disclosed before the S. H. O., Police Station, Saddar, Bahawalnagar that on 20-3-1980 at about 6/7 p.m. The appellant and Constable No. 467 Allah Ditta who were posted in the District Police Lines, Bahawalnagar had conducted a raid on the shop of the abovenamed accused Atta Muhammad son of Ahmad Din and recovered some bottles of liquor from there. However, on the intervention of one Sher Muhammad a retired Havaldar of Army, the above-mentioned constables demanded Rs. 1.000 for the release of accused persons, as illegal gratification and accepted Rs.
700 as bribe at the spot and released the accused persons without taking any legal action against them. The accused had promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 300 on later stage but on failure of payment they were maltreated and given beatings. The appellant alongwith the other constable by abusing their official position had conducted this raid on their own accord without informing the senior police officers and also extorted money from the accused persons as illegal gratification. They were issued a show-cause notice and ground of action under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975, for major punishment with the permission of the District Magistrate, Bahawalnagar, granted vide his memo. No. 79-J/1385, dated 1-4-1980. The reply submitted by the appellant was considered, a probe into the matter was made by ASP,/SDPO/Hqrs., Bahawalnagar, who vide his report dated 10-5-1980 made it clear that the appellant alongwith the other accused constable had acted in a most unlawful manner. The allegations stood proved against them. The appellant was heard in person by the Superintendent of Police, Bahawalnagar on 11-5-1980. He was dismissed from service vide Superintendent of Police, Bahawalnagar, Order dated 13-5-1980. He made an appeal to Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Bahawalpur which was rejected vide order dated 20-9-1980. He made a revision petition to the Inspector-General of Police. Punjab, Lahore which was also rejected vide order dated 23-2-1981 of the Additional Inspector---General of Police, Punjab, Lahore. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney on behalf of the above respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record an order passed by the Additional Inspector-General of Police/Estt. For the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore to the Superintendent of Police, Bahawalnagar in the petition of Allah Ditta ex- Constable No. 467 co-accused alongwith the appellant in this case. The learned counsel for the appellant has sub--mitted that through this order it has been held that the enquiry and finding of the enquiry officer are very sketchy and defunctory and a regular enquiry should have been held against the said Allah Ditta. On this basis the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that order dated 23-2-1981 of Additional Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore whereby appellants' revision petition was rejected is discriminatory and the appellant should have been treated alike to meet the end's of justice. He has further submitted that as observed by the Additional Inspector--- General of Police/Estt. Punjab, Lahore, the case in hand involves the charge of corruption and regular enquiry should have been held in the circumstances of this case as well, as it has been held by them in the case of other co-accused. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the order at Annexure A-I produced by the appellant during the arguments is an unattested copy and no reliance could be placed upon this order. He has also submitted that a preliminary enquiry was conducted regarding the charges against the appellant in which he was associated and he was given the chance to cross-examine the witnesses and thus the appellant was provided opportunity to defend himself. He conclu--ded that thus in this case resorting to the provision of show-cause notice under the rules 6 (3) of the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules is perfectly in order and lawful.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments put forward by both of the learned couns:1 and have also perused the record. Though the order at annexure "A-I" is an unattested copy but it has not been objected by the respondent so we have to rely upon this document. We have perused this order issued by the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore signed by the Additional Inspector-General/Estt. Police, Punjab Lahore vide his memo. No. 31256/M-V, dated 16-11-1981, addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Bahawalngar whereby the petition of ex---Constable Allah Ditta as accepted, the Additional Inspector-General/ Estt. Police, Punjab, Lahore observed as follows : - "Unfortunately the enquiry and finding of the enquiry officer are very sketchy and defunctory.
Indeed the main accused whose shop was raided, i,e. Atta Muhammad son of Ahmed Din has denied the prosecution story. Under such circumstances I do not think the case has been proved beyond doubt. In view of his long service and fairly good record, a full-fledged departmental enquiry should be conducted to establish his guilt or otherwise."
We have minutely gone through the show-cause notice served to the appellant and have noted that the appellant and another constable Allah Ditta, had let of the accused persons after accepting Rs. 700 as illegal gratification without taking any legal action against them, which amounted to serious misconduct and corruption. In view of the charge of corruption and order of the Additional Inspector-General/Estt. Police, Punjab, Lahore .Reproduced above, we are of the considered opinion that the Additional Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore while dismiss-- ing the revision petition of the appellant has passed a discriminatory order and the appellant also deserves a similar treatment as that of co accused Allah Ditia, as they were charged with the same allegation. A such we held that in the appellant's case also dispensing of regular enquiry on a charge of corruption by the competent authority is unjustified and resorting to procedure of show- cause notice is an arbitrary exercise of discretion vested in the competent authority under rule 6
(3) of Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975. A full-fledged regular enquiry should have, been held to give the appellant an opportunity to defend himself.
6. In view of the above analysis, we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned orders and remand the case to the Superintendent of Police, Bahawalnagar, for proceedings against the appellant in accordance with the law as observed above. We direct that the appellant be re- instated in service to bestow upon him the status of civil servant to enable the com--petent authority to proceed against him but the period from the date of his dismissal to that of re- instatement will be treated as extraordinary leave without pay.
There will be no order as to costs.