MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER). -Muhammad Sarwar, ex-Cons--table No. 1588 has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Lahore, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore and the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, as respon--dents. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders 15-5-1980, 23-2-1981 and 8-8-1982 passed by the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively be set aside and he be re-instated in service with all back benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was posted in the District Traffic Staff, Lahore, he alongwith Muhammad Yousaf was served with a notice dated 2--9-1978 to show-cause as to why he should not be awarded a major punishment including dismissal from service under the Punjab Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975 on the allegations that he absented himself from duty and engaged in unauthorised traffic checking for corrupt motives on 31-8-1978 at G. T. Road, near Kala Shah Kakut where he was checked by Muhammad Rafiq Sub-Inspector, S.H.O.;' Police Station Narang-District Sheikhupura and that on seeing him, hr ran away in Taxi Car No. JM-65 engaged by him for the said purpose but. Boas chased and caught hold near Shahdara. The appellant submitted his reply on 11-9-1978 but was dismissed from service under orders of the Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Lahore issued vide his Office Order No. 673-76/SPT, dated 10-1- 1979. The appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore Range which was rejected vide order dated 5-7-1979. The appellant then filed the revision petition before the Inspector-General of Police. Punjab which came up for hearing before Muhammad Azam Qazi the than Inspector-General of Police, Punjab Lahore, vide his order dated 25-11-1979 issued vide his office endorsement No. 36729-31/M-V, dated 28-11-1979 who accepted the appeal and directed that he should be re-instated in service. However, in paras. 5 and 6 of his order, the Inspector- General of Police observed as follows :- "The S. P./Traffic, regrettably did not follow the correct procedure in this enquiry without framing charge-sheet and statement of allegations thereby contravening rule 7 of the Punjab Police (E & D)
Rules, 1975.
Since the enquiry proceedings suffer from legal infirmity as mentioned above, the orders of S. P./Traffic and the D. I.-G./L.R. Are set aside. However, further proceedings are ordered which must be completed at the earliest, The petitioner is re-instated but decision with regard to the absence from duty will be decided by S. P./Traffic, in the light of his decision in the departmental enquiry."
When the file was received back in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Traffic, he again dispensed with the appointment of an Enquiry Officer and decided to proceed against the appellant by way of General Police proceedings as envisaged under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975, the appellant submitted reply and was also heard in person.
However, he was dismissed from service vide S. P's order dated 15-5-1980. The appellant submitted an appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police which was rejected vide order dated 23-2- 1981. His revision before the Inspector-General of Police was also rejected vide order dated 4-8- 1982 issued vide his memo. No. 17113/M-N, dated 8-8-1982. Hence this appeal.
3. We have beard the parties. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that against the original order of his dismissal from service passed by the Superintendent of Police on 2-9-1978, his revision petition was accepted by the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore vide his order dated 25-11-1979 and the case was remanded to the Superintendent of Police Traffic for regular enquiry in accordance with the Rules. It has been submitted that the Superintendent of Police, in flagrant violation of the directions of the Inspector-General of Police has dispensed with the enquiry and has proceeded under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975 which has seriously prejudiced him in his defence. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has argued that the Inspector-General of Police had observed in the order that the correct procedure should be observed by the Superintendent of Police and the S. P. Has not contravened any of the directions of the Inspector-General of Police. It has further been submitted that since the charge against the appellant related to absence from duty and checking of the Traffic in an unsuthorised manner where he was caught red-handed by S. H. O. Narang, so there was no justification for holding a regular enquiry and the re--course to rule 6 (3) of the said Rules has correctly been taken by the Superintendent of Police.
4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record carefully. The crucial issue for deter--mination before us is whether the Inspector-General of Police had remand--ed the case to the Superintendent of Police Traffic for regular enquiry in accordance with the Rules or whether he left it to the discretion of the S. P. To decide about it. For this purpose we have perused the order of the I.-G. P. Dated 25-11-1979, in para. 3 of his order. I.-G. P.
Has pro--duced the order of the Superintendent of Police which reads as follows :- ---Traffic Inspector (Office) to hold a regular departmental enquiry and put up proceedings with findings within 15 days.
Thus, it is clear that the I.-G. P. Had remanded the case to the Superinten--dent of Police for proceedings afresh by conducting an enquiry through an Enquiry Officer. Thus, we hold that the order of S. P. Passed in violation of the mandatory instructions of the I.-G. P. Is illegal. Since the basic order has been declared to be illegal so all the consequential orders passed by the D. I.-G. And I.-G.
P. Are also liable to fall to the ground. We may observe here that it was bounded duty of the S. P. To pass order strictly in accordance with rules 6 and 7 by framing a charge-sheet and statement of allegations and he should have got the matter thoroughly enquired into by the appointment of an Enquiry Officer.
5. In view of the above analysis, we hold that the impugned orders passed by the respondents are illegal and are liable to be set aside. So we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned orders.
The case is remanded to the Superintendent of Police Traffic who may proceed against the appellant strictly in accordance with the rules by conducting an enquiry by appointment of an Enquiry Officer. The appellant shall be re-instate into service to bestow upon him the status of a Civil Servant to enable the Superintendent of Police to proceed against him in accordance with the Rules. The period from the date of his dismissal to his re-instatement shall be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. There will be no order as to costs.