Ghulam Haider. S. No. 173/R, National Police Foundation, Islamabad, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 in which he has impleaded the Senior Superintendent of Police Rawalpindi, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Rawalpindi Range, Rawalpindi and the Inspector-General of Police, Lahore as respondents, By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi dated 12-4-1980,order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rawalpindi Range, Rawalpindi and that of the Inspector- General of Police dated 12-12-1980 be set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that one Mst. Azizan were of Muhammad Suleman sent an application to the President of Pakistan alleging that the appellant had accepted Rs. 1,500 from her for registration of the case of the abduction of her daughter. The copy of the application was also sent to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi.
When this application was received in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police on 25-7- 1979, he deputed the Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Rawalpindi for necessary action and report. Mr. Rafi Ahmed Pervaiz Ehatti, Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Rawalpindi conducted a preliminary enquiry and recorded statements of Mst. Azizan Annexure R/4, Muhammad Suleman Annexure R/7 and the statement of the appellant Annexure R/8. He also placed on record the statement of Mst. Anwar Jan, abductee daughter of the complainant recorded by the Magistrate on 25-6-1979 under section 164, Cr. P. C.. Mr. Rafi Ahmad Pervaiz Bhatti, Superintendent of Police, Headquarters Rawalpindi submitted his report Annexure R/2 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi in which he held that the appellant had accepted Rs. 300 from the father of abductee- Muhammad Suleman and a sum of Rs. 1,500 from his were Hst. Azizan as illegal gratification for registration of abduction case. This report was placed before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi on 10-9-1979, who agreed with the same, Keeping in view the report of Mr. Rafi Ahmed Pervaiz Bhatti, Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi, the Senior Superintendent of Police decided to proceed against the appellant by way of General Police Proceedings without appointment of an Enquiry Officer. So he issued the, order accordingly. As such the appellant was served with a show- cause notice under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1975 which is reproduced hereunder :--- 'One Mst. Azizan were of Muhammad Saaeman, caste Janjua Rajput, resident of village Badia Rustam, P.S, Golra, submitted an applicable to the C. M L. A. Alleging abduction of her daughter by Muhammad Sarwar etc. From Jhanda Chechi, jurisdiction of P. P. Chaklala. In para. 4 of her application, she alleged accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 1.500 by S. I. Ghulam Haider No. 173/R, Incharge, Police Post Chaklala. The Superintendent of Police, H, Rawalpindi, held preliminary enquiry into the matter who has reported vide his report No. 3003/S, dated 9-9-1979 that the allegation of accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 1,500 by the S. I. Has been established during the enquiry."
The appellant submitted reply to the show-cause notice and was also heard in person by the Senior Superintendent of Police. Rawalpindi who passed the impugned order whereby he awarded him major penalty of ruction in his pay by two stages below that i.e., 2 increments, thus reduc--ed ing his pay from Rs. 391 p. m. To Rs. 363 p. m. The appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police which was also rejected on 5-4-1981. Thereafter a revision petition was filed which was also rejected by the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore by his order dated 12-12-1981. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the parties. It has been argued that the allegations against the appellant are that he accepted an illegal gratification of a sum 1,500 from Mst. Azizan for registering the case of abduction of her daughter Mst. Anwar Jan. Since this was the allegation of corruption based on oral evidence so the Departmental authorities had committed irregularity by resorting to the procedure of show-cause notice and the regular enquiry has been illegally dispensed with, which has prejudiced the defence of the appellant. On the other hand it has been argued by the learned District Attorney that a preliminary enquiry was conducted by Mr. Rafi Ahmad Pervaiz Bhatti, Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi himself, who recorded the statement of Mst. Azizan, Muhammad Suleman and Fazal Karim on 8-8-1979. On the same day, he also procured the written statement of the appellant Annexure R/8. It has been further argued that the appellant was present before the Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi on 8-8-1979 and he could cross-examine the witnesses in accordance with the law if he so wished. Thus be has concluded that the regular enquiry has rightly been dispensed with by adopting the procedure of General Police proceedings which is strictly in accordance with the law and the rules.
4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record. The copies of the statements placed on record by the learned District Attorney clearly shows that Mr. Raft Ahmad Pervaiz Bhatti, S. P., Rawalpindi recorded the statements of the witnesses mentioned above without administering an oath to them and also did not offer any opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine them. As such the statements recorded by the Superintendent of Police without submitting them to cross-examination by the appellant cannot be used as evidence against the appellant. From the perusal of the order of the q Senior Superintendent of Police it has transpired that even the S. S. P. Was alive of such situation when he quoted the following observations of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police in para. 5 of the impugned order :- "That under the very recent instructions from the Deputy Inspector---General of Police, Rawalpindi Range, Rawalpindi, the complainant had to be confronted with the defaulter and the latter is entitled to ask leading questions from the complainant. The proceedings are, therefore, illegal and cannot be made basis to punish the defaulter".
While awarding the punishment, the S. S. P. Has observed in para. 7 hat as per merits of the case, the appellant deserves no other punishment than dismissal for an established allegation of corruption and he does not deserve any leniency but taking into consideration on the fact of not afford--ing him a chance of confrontation with the complainant ; he awarded him the punishment of reduction in his pay by two stages. Thus it can safely be inferred that even the Senior Superintendent of Police was fully conscious of the fact that the statements of witnesses who are not subjected to cross-examination cannot be relied upon, to prove the charges so raised against the accused. Thus I can safely hold that the Senior Superintendent of Police has dispensed with the regular enquiry in an arbitrary manner and in exercise of this arbitrary discretion, the appellant has been deprived of the right of his defence and that it was a fit case in which a regular enquiry was to be concluded.
6. In view of the above discussion I set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi for de novo enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer into the matter, as laid down in the rules, if he is so advised.