ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). -Bilal Ahmad has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded Superintendent of Police (Admn.), Lahore, D. I.-G. Police Lahore Range, Lahore and Inspector-General of Police, Punjab as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugn--ed order dated 27-4-1978 and the final order dated 31-5-1982/5-6-1982, be set aside and appellant or., re-instated in service with full benefits of pay, allowances, seniority, etc.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as temporary A. S. I. With effect from 2-10-1976. He was undergoing training in the year 1978 in the Intermediate School Course at P. T. C., Sihala. He was alleged to have been found using unfair means in the examination of Police Rules held at P. T. C., Sihala on 23-2-1978. He was disqualified from the course by the Board comprising of D. I.-G. And two Superintendents of Police and was returned to his parent district in accor--dance with rule 41 of P. T. C. Manual. He was discharged from service as laid down in the rules vide impugned orders dated 27-4-1978 by D. I.-G. Police Lahore Range, Lahore. The appellant made a representation to I.-G. Of Police, Punjab, which was considered and filed vide order dated 31-5-1982 conveyed to the appellant on, 5-6-1982. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant was found copying and using unfair means in the examination of Police Rules at P. T. C., Sihala on 23-2-1978. He was declared disqualified in the said examination by the Board and return--ed to the District. No enquiry was held in this case. The appellant was not given any chance to confront the allegation and prove his innocence. Thus, the appellant was prejudiced in the matter and was condemned unheard. If an enquiry would have been conducted or personal hearing would have been given by the Board, it would have been proved that the appellant had not derived any benefit from the notes on the card board, taken exception to. It was further submitted by the learned coud5el for the appellant that these notes were actually not concerning the Police Rules for which the examination was being held on 23-2-1978 and the action of the Board disqualifying the appellant on this account was illegal and not justified. Similarly the appellant was discharged from service by Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore, without giving him any opportunity of defence and was discharged from service, only mentioning, as laid down in the Rules. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that no particular rule was mentioned in the discharge order and thus discharge order of Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore is itself a defective and inoperative order ; and is thus, void ab initio. It was also further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that if a reference is made to the parawise comments sub--mitted by the respondents, it has been mentioned that the appellant was discharged from service as laid down in the Police Rules 19.25. But a different stand was taken by the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab when a reply was given to the Military Secretary to the President/C. M. L. A. Of Pakistan, C. M. L. A's .Secretariat, Rawalpindi (Annexure ID'), wherein it was mentioned that the petition of the appellant was turned down for one of the reasons that his appointment was made on political basis. Thus, a contrary stand has been taken by the respondents in this case. It was also clarified that even if it is assumed that the appellant was in the first instance appointed on the recommendation of the Chief Minister, but on the introduction of Martial Law Instruction No. 21, the cases of appellant and other direct recruits of Lahore were duly scrutinized by a screening board consisting of two Deputy. Inspector-Generals of Police and a Lt.- Col. Of Pakistan Army. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant's appointment was approved by the said board under M. L. I. 21 and as such his appointment was regularized and he was no more a temporary employee. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the stand taken by the respondents in appellant's case was not based on actual facts. He also brought this to the notice of the Tribunal, that in a similar case of other co-accused who belonged to Pro--vince of Baluchistan, a different view was taken by the Inspector-General of Police, Balucbistan,-on one of the pleas that there was non-co-operative attitude of the instructional staff of the P. T. C., Sihala and the said co---accused was re-instated in service by taking a lenient view. This case is on all fours with the said case and the same view should have been taken by the D. I.-G., Lahore Range,/I.-G. Police, Punjab, Lahore. Concluding his arguments the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the punish--ment so awarded is also on the extreme which the appellant did not deserve and prayed that the case of the appellant be considered sympathe--tically. He has also relied on the earlier judgments of this Tribunal in Case No. 579/708 of 1980, decided on 4-10-1981 and Case No. 589/1402 of 1981, decided on 15-4- 1982.
5. Rebutting these arguments the learned District Attorney, assisted by the representative of the Department has mainly relied upon the para--were comments submitted by the respondents. It has been submitted by him that the appellant was found using unfair means in the examination at P. T. C., Sihala on 23-2-1978. He was disqualified for the said examina--tion by the Board and returned to his parent district. Thus, this mis--conduct came under the purview of the Police Rules 19.25, and the appel--lant was discharged from service in accordance with these provisions of Rules. There was no necessity of issuing any show-cause notice, etc. By the competent authority under these Rules and thus the appellant has been discharged correctly and lawfully.
6. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have consulted the documents so attached with this appeal. The appellant was declared disqualified for the examination by the Board in the year 1978 and returned to the District in accordance with rule 41 of the P. T. C. Manual. As is clear from the parawise comments submitted by the respondents on this appeal, that on return to the District, the appel--lant was discharged from service as laid down in the Police Rule 19.25. Thus, it is clear that discharge from service of the applicant, was only under the Police Rule 19.25. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was dealt at his back. He was not given any opportunity to prove his innocence, neither by the Board no by the competent authority. No enquiry was held against the appellant and he has been prejudiced in the matter. We are in agreement with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that on the principles of fairplay, equity and justice, the enquiry should have been conducted against the appellant and also he should have been given an opportunity to defend himself, by the Disqualification Board and also by the competent authority. We are confident that if these formalities would have been completed by the Board and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore their decisions in this case would have been quite, different. Even going through the facts of the case, keeping in view the past service of the appellant and the decision taken in a similar case of a co-accused (Ghulam Abbas A. S. I. Of Kalat Division who was re-instated in service, after being discharged by Superintendent of Police Kalat) by the Inspector-General of Police, Baluchistan, we are convinced that the punish--ment so awarded to the appellant is not in consonance with the guilt attri--buted to the appellant.
7. Keeping the above analysis in view, we set aside the impugned orders. The appellant is directed to be re-instated in service and the punishment so awarded vide impugned order dated 27-4-1978 by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police. Lahore Range, Lahore is modified as follows :-
(1) Censure.
(2) Stoppage of one year's increment without future effect.
The period of the appellant's absence from duty till resuming of his duty shall be treated on leave without pay.
There will be no order as to costs.