S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Muhammad Ajmal, S. I., Police Lines, Lahore, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Superintendent of Police, City Division, Lahore, D.I.-G. Police, Lahore Range, Lahore, and I. G. Of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 29th January, 1981, 17th May, 1981, and 7th January, 1982 be set aside and Respondent No. 1 directed to pay full salary and allowances to the appellant for the period from 27th December, 1981 to 29th January, 1982.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was issued after his suspension a show-cause notice in which it was stated that on 27th December, 1980 Ali Muhammad, son of Haji Mian Nathu Moghal, alongwith Haji Mehr Din son of Mian Nathu Moghal and Abdul Wahid son of Mian Nathu Moghal resident of House No. 2, Street No. 21, Data Nagar, P. S. Badami Bagh, complained before the D.I.-G. Of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore, that Shop No. 67 which belonged to him was let out by one Muhammad Shafiq, son of Muhammad Sharif. He filed a civil suit against Muhammad Shafiq tenant for the ejectment in the Court of Mumtaz Hussain. Civil Judge, Lahore. On 17th October, 1980 the shop was got vacated through Abdul Ghafoor bailiff and its possession was made in the presence of Muhammad Sharif, father of Muhammad Shafiq and Shahid Javed, brother of Muhammad Rafiq, tenant. The said tenant removed their articles from their shop and put their articles inside and locked up. A deed for handing over of the possession of the shop was prepared by the bailiff of the Court on which signatures of both Muhammad Sharif and Shahid Javed were obtained. It was further stated that after about 11 years one S.I. And two A.S.Is with 2/3 constables arrived at the spot and got hold of the owner and his brother Haji Mehar Din and took them to the Police Station, Badamibagh. It was further alleged that they were confined in a room. In their absence the lock of the shop was broken upon and Muhammad Shafiq was put into possession.
When Abdul Wahid and Muhammad Ashraf, relatives of the owner, reached the spot, they were also taken into custody and brought to the Police Station. A case was registered by A. S. I. Asghar Ali Shah vide F.I.R. No. 90 dated 22nd December, 1980 under section 452/ 506/427, P.P.C. At P. S. Badamibagh. It was further alleged that Haji Mehar Din and his brother were also deprived of Rs.
300 and a wrist watch and Rs. 500 respectively. The matter was reported to the appellant and he took no notice of it. The appellant was heard in person and submitted that when he returned to P.S. Badamibagh on 22nd December, 1980 at about 7. 30 p.m. After attending a meeting in the office of S.P. City Division, Lahore, the above-mentioned case stood already registered and he had absolutely nothing to do with the affair. The competent authority, Kazi Safdar Hussain, S.P. City Division, Lahore, found the appellant guilty and awarded him punishment of forfeiture of 2 years approved service. However, he was re-instated in service but the period of his suspension .Was also declared as without any pay. He filed an appeal before the D.I.-G. Who after looking into the entire facts of the case, upheld the same. However, he set aside the order regarding the award of punishment of forfeiture of 2 years service in case of Asghar Ali A.S.I. The appellant made further representation in the form of revision petition before the I.-G.P, but the same was rejected. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney and perused the record carefully with his assistance. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the charges against the appellant were of a nature which required a full-fledged enquiry and the procedure adopted tinder rule 6 (3) of the Police Rules was not proper. It has been further argued that the departmental authorities have not applied proper mind when deciding the case and have ignored the unblemished record of service of the appellant during the period in which he earned 18 commendable certificates. The learned counsel has produced an order of the D.I.-G. Police, respondent No. 2 in this case dated 9th May, 1982 to show that the said respondent himself has held the appellant innocent in this matter and was pleased to expunge the adverse entries so given to' him on account of the said alleged mishandling of Case F.I.R. No. 90 dated 22nd December, 1980 under section 427/451/506 of the P.P.C.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the appellant's arguments advanced by the learned counsel on his behalf and find the order placed on record as Annexure A-I does relate to the incident which culminated into the punishment of 2 years forfeiture of service and withholding his pay for the period under suspension. The concluding paragraph of the said order Annexure A-I has got great significance for the adjudication of the issue before us, as to whether punishment awarded by the competent authority and upheld by the D.I.-G. As well as by L-G.P. Is justified or not.
The D.I.-G. Vide his order dated 9th May, 1982 has observed as under :---- "However, what convinces me that there were no mala fides involved on his part is the fact that the case registered against him on the same score bad not been challaned by the D. S. P. Concerned and he was found to be innocent. Accordingly, I find that the adverse remarks in question cannot be substantiated and as such the same are hereby expunged."
We cannot reconcile the finding in this order of the D.I.-G. With the earlier order of the competent authority and of the D.I.G. Himself. If in the same matter, the same D.I.-G. Of Police has come to a conclusion that the appellant was innocent and the adverse entry so given to him with regard to the same incident was uncalled for and liable to be expunged then how could he be held guilty for the same offence by a different order.
6. The fact of the matter is that all what happened on the fateful day, happened in the absence of the appellant, and the person responsible by all measures would be the author of the F.I.R. Who happened to be present at the spot. What we find in the impugned order of the D.L.G. Dated 16th May, 1981 is that Muhammad Asghar A.S.I. Was let for on the ground that his senior should have taken the situation in his own hand and should have undone what was done by him. We also fail to under--stand that if this was the verdict in the said matter, then how the D.I.-G. Came upon a considered conclusion that the appellant was innocent in the said case, which conclusion he has drawn in his letter order dated 9th May, 1982.
7. In view of above, we have no alternative but to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the earlier order being irreconcilable with the later verdict of the same authority, would be liable to be set aside. The result is we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order, by which the service of the appellant has been forfeited for two years.
8. With regard to the claim of the appellant that he should be restored the entire pay of his suspension period, we are afraid, we cannot accept the same as the departmental authority is, however, competent to determine this issue under section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act.
However, the parties shall bear their own costs.