Habib Ullah ex-A. S. I. Has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, against the order dated 25-4-1981 passed by Respondent No. 1 and appellate order dated 24-8- 1981, passed by res--pondent No. 2. He has impleaded S.P. Bahawalpur and D.I.G., Bahawalpur Range, I. G. P. As respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders be, set aside and he may be re- instated in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a show-- cause notice notice in which it was stated that he failed to do the following :-
(1) That on 10-2-1981 he received an order of ejectment but failed to inform S.H.O. Or A.S.P., Ahmadpur East.
(2) That he failed to take preventive measures in connection with the dispute/possession of Government land measuring 27 square between Muhammad Ali party on one side and Dr. Nazir party on the other side.
(3) That he failed to take steps for recovery of illicit arms from the parties.
(4) That he failed to register a case when he was informed that Ashraf etc. Gave beating to the son of Abdul Malik.
(5) That he has given assistance to the parties presumably for ulterior/ corrupt motive.
The appellant submitted replies to the show-cause notice on. 16-4-1981 but he was compulsorily retired from service as it was felt that the allegations stood proved against him. The appellant submitted appeal to the D.I.G. Which was rejected and his subsequent revision petition before the I.-G. P. Met the same fate. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the P.D.S.P., Bahawalpur and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had not committed any act of omission or commission but acted in good faith to comply with the orders of the Revenue Courts. It was further submitted that no complaint of corruption has ever been made against him during his 24 years long service and he was proud of his unblemished record. It was further argued that in the show-cause notice no mention of any charge of corruption was made against the appellant, yet the learned S.P. Has transgressed the limits of show-cause notice by bringing extraneous matters without giving the appellant opportunity to defend himself with regard to these allegations. In the end it was vehemently urged that punishment in this case was not in consonance with the alleged commission of lapses. On the other hand the learned D.A and the learned P.D. S.P. Have fully supported the judgment of S.P. Which according to them was well-considered taking all the pros and cons of the case therefore, no exception could be taken to it. With regard to the quantum of sentence it was submitted that the competent authority was the best judge of the same but the matter is always open to the Tribunal to make its own assessment.
5. I have given my anxious thought to the contentions raised by the parties and have also examined reply to the show-cause notice given by the appellant and the assessment of the same made by the competent authority. The perusal of charge sheet would reveal that first two charges are of identi--cal nature which relate to an act of omission by the appellant in not inform--ing his senior officers and acting at his own without taking guidance from the said officers. The facts of the case reveal that in both the cases i.e. Not delivering of possession after ejectment from the land as well as delivery of possession of rooms, the orders were conveyed to the appellant by the competent civil courts and appellant executed the same without any apparent confrontation. The appellant was holding the charge of a Police Post which was not connected either by a telephone or wireless with the Headquarters, therefore, the appellant failed to inform his superiors when he found that the matter was being handled without any disturbance. In case of delivery of possession of rooms the appellant did inform the S.H.O. And in lieu thereof he was provided with an armed guard. As nothing untoward happened and the order was executed peacefully, he in his bona fide belief considered that it was no use to disturb his superiors when everything was going fine. With regard to the allegation that he failed to take preventive measures against Muhammad Ali party of one side and Dr. Nazir party of the other side, he did register a case under section 107/150 against 40 persons and 2,13rd of them were bounded down to appear before the court. He avoided action under section 151, Cr. P.C. As he found that parties were reluctant to confront each other and there was no immediate apprehension of any breach of peace.
6. After carefully examining the order of the S.P. I do not find myself in agreement with his observation that appellant was found siding with parties, an act, highly objectionable for a Police Officer: This argument is devoid of logic for the simple reason that it would be impossible for any body to side with both the parties. At the best one can help one party against the other. In that case the other party would at once come out with a complaint against the appellant. The record of this case reveals that nobody has come forward with a complaint that the appellant was acting in collaboration with one party against the interest of other for some ulterior motives. It is also on the record that during the entire process of ejectment of the rooms as well .s that of the land nothing untoward happened which resulted in lash between the two factions, therefore, the appellant as an officer on the spot did not consider it proper to aggravate the matter by starting unnecessary search for arms when the arms were not in open display. Even otherwise I am of the considered view that if the opposition parties were bent upon creating mischief by taking law in to their own hands or to settle their dispute by force for such matter the arms could be obtained at the nick of time from outside sources. To presume more that recourse to violence is always made on the strength of concealed arms,, will be stretching the arguments too far.
7. With regard to the allegation that the appellant failed to register a case when he was informed by Abdul Malik there is hardly any data on the record which could substantiate that the alleged offence had been so committed. The appellant has vehemently asserted in his explanation before the S. P. As well as before me that the hue and cry made by Abdul Malik in the said matter was in fact far from truth as he himself was a noto--rious person who could cook up things against his opponents in order to create harassment and problems for them.
8. I have purposely looked into the dossier of the appellant to see whether his claim of 24 years unblemished service was correct or not. What I find is, that he had only one adverse report in the year 1980 and that too does not dubb him as corrupt. The report stated that he was officer of average capabilities. This report stood expunged under the order of the. Competent authority in the matter for the reason that the reporting officer has assessed his work for a period of less than 3 months. In this manner the claim of the appellant that his 24 years unblemished service has been ignored by the competent authority while imposing extreme penalty of compulsory retirement from service, seem to have a lot of force.
9. My personal assessm ent of all these charges as analysed by me in the earlier part of my judgment is that the appellant has in no way acted in a manner which was in flagrant violation of rules or the law laid down but has assumed responsibility by showing confidence in himself. In this manner it cannot be said that the appellant had any ulterior motives as there is no evidence to connect him with the same but at the same time I do hold that he has been overconfident and less prudent. If he had taken care he could have informed his superiors who were only at a distance of 14 miles connected with a pacca road. In this way I feel that the appellant has been negligent and over confident while performing a risky task which could result into a clash of arms etc. Etc. It was lucky that everything went smoothly otherwise he would have been in a great difficulty. The competent authority in this case has taken an extreme view of the situation and has brought in his - judgment certain extraneous matters which were never subject-matter of show-cause notice and that too without any justification, has come to the conclusion that all of what was done, was done due to the corrupt motives.
10. It is a matter of common knowledge that a civil servant nowa--days, is shorn of all protections which he had to his advantage in service in earlier times. Whatever is left to him is E & D Rules and decision of the competent authority which should always be tampered with mercy. If the case of the appellant would have been a case of a person who in his earlier career had earned bad reports or had faced a number of enquiries for his misdeeds I would have looked the matter from that angle and would have maintained the order of the competent authority without any interference.
The present case is a case where the appellant has served the Police Depart--ment for full 24 years with credit and to throw him on the road at the fag end of his service, for allegations which have no basis or of a nature which cannot be considered to be grave, it would be an act of great hardship as well as injustice, if he is allowed to be visited with extreme penalty of compulsory retirement from service.
11. In view of the above I am of the considered opinion that minor penalty of censure will serve the ends of justice. I therefore, vary the sentence of compulsory retirement from service to that of censure and set aside the impugned order. The appellant is re-instated in service with all back benefits.
12. However, parties will bear their own costs.