ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Mr. Muhammad Nawaz, the appellant ex-Constable No. 98, Jhang, of Punjab Police Department, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Jhang, District Jhang, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range, now Faisalabad Range Faisalabad and the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders of dismissal dated 19-7-1981 and appellate order dated I7-3-1982, passed by respondents Nos.1 and 2, respectively, be set aside and he be directed to be re-instated in service with all consequential benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 25-6-1981, Mr. Tariq Masood Khosa, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Sadar, Jhang, was proceeding to P. S. Mochiwala. On his way the A. S. P., Sadar, saw the appellant Muhammad Nawaz, ex-Constable and ex-Constable Mushtaq negotiating with truck driver Ghulam Hussain. The Truck No. DN/6314 was parked on Jhang-Faisalabed Road about 200 yards away from Ayub Chauk. On having seen the jeep of A. S. P. The appellant and his companion escaped. The driver of A. S. P. Identified the appellant and his companion. A pre--liminary inquiry was conducted by A. S. P. Sadar during which it came to light that the appellant demanded and accepted Rs. 20 as illegal gratifica--tion. The appellant was served with a show-cause notice under section 6 (3) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The appellant could not rebut the allegation and he was dismissed from service by Superintendent of Police, Jhang, vide his order dated 19-7-1981. He filed an appeal to Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha, which was rejected vide his order dated 17-3-1982. He filed a revision petition to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, dated 31-3-1982 which was still pending. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was dismissed from service on charge of corruption as is clear from the show-cause notice served to the appellant and also the impugned order of his dismissal dated 19-7-1981 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jhang. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Punjab Service Tribunal has already held in so many cases that in case of corruption, holding of departmental enquiry was a must and only service of show-cause notice to a civil servant under the (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, would not meet ends of the justice. In this particular case the appellant was served with a show--cause notice wherein he was charged for accepting the bribe, the charge being of corruption, a regular enquiry should have been held to prove this corruption charge against him. As this was not done, thus, the appellant has been dismissed from service without proving the charge against him and his dismissal orders are unlawful, void ab initio and not operative.
5. Controverting these-.Arguments the learned District Attorney submitted that the charge stood established against the appellant, as is clear from the contents of the impugned orders, hence there was no necessity of holding a regular enquiry and the impugned orders of his dismissal passed were perfectly lawful and these orders were passed after the charge was proved and the appellant was found guilty of misconduct.
6. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties. We have already held in our earlier judgments that the dispensing of regular enquiry on the allegation of corruption is unjustified and resort--ing to the procedure of show-cause notice would be an arbitrary exercise of discretion vested in the competent authority under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. In a case involving charges of corruption, it was incumbent for the competent authority to conduct regular enquiry to meet the ends of the justice. A reference be made to detail judgment already given by the Punjab Service Tribunal in Case No. 564/1484 of 1981, Khalid Masood v. Superintendent of Police, Sadar Division, Lahore, and 3 others where it has been held that in case of a civil servant who is proceed--ed against on the charge of corruption it is incumbent for the competent authority to conduct regular enquiry.
7. Keeping the above analysis in view, we set aside the impugned orders and the case is remanded to the competent authority for proceeding in accordance with the law as indicated above. The appellant will be re--instated in service to bestow upon him, the status of a civil servant for e proceeding afresh against him by the competent authority. The period from the date of the appellant's dismissal to that of date of re-instatement will be treated as extraordinary leave, without pay.
There will be no orders with regard to costs.