A. O. RAZIUR REHMAN (MEMBER).-The appellant who was then employed as a Head Constable at the Railway Police Station, Sukkur was dismissed from service by an order, dated 12-2-1980, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Sukkur, vide Memo. SSC/1113 18/80. The departmental appeal having also been rejected by the D.I.-G., Pakistan Railways Police, Headquarters Office.
Lahore, by order dated 26-5-1980 and communicated to him on 20-7-1980, the appellant came up before this Tribunal on 20-8-1980, under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
2. The charge against the appellant was that, alongwith two other Constables, he dishonestly misappropriated 18 seers of charas recovered from the 56 Down train at Railway Station. Sukkur and allowed the owner of the charas to escape away un-apprehended. After preliminary investiga--tion, in which it was established that the offence had been committed by the three persons mentioned, show-cause notice was issued to the appellant and the other two persons and they were, after being given personal hearing, all dismissed from service on the charge of misconduct under the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973.
3. The parties having been heard at length on 20-4-1983 and the relevant documents, including the departmental file having been perused, the appeal is disposed of by this order.
4. The main grounds on which the dismissal order has been impugned are that the appellant, being a member of the Pakistan Railways Police, constituted under the Pakistan Railways Police Act, 1977 and, therefore, an employee of the Federal Government, was liable to disciplinary action provided by the Punjab Police Rules 1934, as envisage, by section 19 of the Pakistan Railways Police Act, 1973, and not under the Sind Civil Servants Act 1973, under which action was taken against him, and that a major penalty could be imposed upon him only after holding a regular departmental enquiry and not under the summary procedure actually followed. It was also urged do behalf of the appellant that the only testimony relied upon in the case, was that of an accomplice, Police Constable Ghulam Rasool, who implicated the appellant and other persons for his own ulterior motives. Besides, it was urged that, although a cog--nizable offence in respect of 18 seers of charas valued at more than Rs. 10,000 had been committed, no case had been registered with the Police which indicated that the action taken against the appellant, was only a smoke-screen to shield the actual offenders and let them escape undetected.
We have given our fullest consideration to all the above points raised on behalf of the appellant, alongwith the others stated in the memo. Of appeal, and have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in any of these points.
6. So far as the legal objection to the action taken under the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973, is concerned, the correct position is that under section 5 (1) of the Pakistan Railways Act, 1977 the appellant, who was an employee of the Railway Police of the Province of Sind was to stand transferred to the Pakistan Railways Police to such corresponding rank or post as was to be notified by the Federal Government, Thereafter, under section 19 (1), he was to be governed by the Punjab.
Police Rules, 1934, till such time as the rules and regulations were framed by the Inspector, General under section 18 of the Act. Since the notification under section 5 (1), indicating the corresponding rank or post to which the appellant was to be transferred under the Pakistan Railways Police, after the promulga--tion of the Pakistan Railways Police Act, 1977, had not been issued at the time the departmental proceedings were taken up against him, section 19 (a) was not applicable to him and he continued to be governed by the Sind Civil Servant's (E & D) Rules, 1973. Actually, it was on 18-8-1980 that the Pakistan Railways Police Rules, 1980 were promulgated, by virtue of which all employees of the Pakistan Railways Police came to be governed by the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, whereas action against the appellant was initiated and completed much before this date, i.e., by 12-2-1983. In view of this objection to the action taken against the appellant under the Sind Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1973, has no merit and is, therefore, repelled.
7. As regards the argument that the case should not have been dealt with summarily but that regular enquiry should have been held, a perusal of the documents shows that the facts of the case were so clear and palpable and the testimony of the confessing accused, Police Constable Ghulam Rasool, made in the presence of the appellant himself, was so convincing that there was no need for formal proceedings in the matter and they were rightly dispensed with by the Superintendent of Police.
8. Similarly, there is no merit in the argument that the order appealed against was based only on he evidence of co-defaulter Ghulam Rasool, because, actually, eye-witnesses Gul Sher Collie and Muhammad Siddique. Waiting Room Bearer, also testified before the Investigating Officer in the presence of the appellant himself and supported the version of Ghulam Rasool.
9. As regards the contention that, since no police case had been registered in connection with the misappropriation of the charas involved in the case, it should be presumed that the appellant was implicated in the case only to shield the actual offender, there is no merit in this also. If no case was registered about the theft or misappropriation of the contra--band charas, it does not mean that the departmental proceedings could not be taken up against those responsible for the disappearance of the charas. The appellant being the Head Constable of the patrol party, which was on duty when the charas in question was found in the Railway compartment, and subsequently made to disappear, it was his responsibility to take appropriate action under the law.
If not only he and his other accomplices failed to apprehend the owner of the charas but the stuff also disappeared, it was for him to explain as to why he did not report the matter of disappearance of the charas, instead of demanding that somebody else should have registered and started a case of theft with regard to the charas in question.
10. Considering all aspects of the matter, we are fully satisfied that there has been no miscarriage of justice in this case and that the appellant alongwith the confessing co-defaulter, Ghulam Rasool, and other accom--plices, had been rightly punished for misappropriating contraband charas and allowing the owner to escape un-apprehended. There has also been no violation of the statutory rules in the procedure adopted in the case, as already discussed above.
11. The result is that the case of the appellant fails and the impugned orders are upheld.
12. The appeal is dismissed.
13. No order as to costs.