Muhajid Abbas Rizvi, ex-A.S.I. Has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Bahawalpur, D. I.-G. Police, Bahawalpur Range, Bahawalpur and Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order of dismissal passed by respondent No. 1 and the appellate order passed by respondent No. 2, beset aside and the appellant be re-instated in service.
3. Brief facts of the case as found from the show-cause notice, which would form the basis of the prosecution case are as under:--- On 7-3-1981, Mst. Shamim Akhtar, her husband Wajid Ali alongwith another person were going to Lodhran from Bahawalpur by a wagon. The wagon when stopped at Sutlej Bridge, Bahawalpur to pay the Toll Tax, the woman raised cries calling the person to save her life. Attracted by these cries the police man posted at the Bridge for duty approached the said person. Wajid Ali told the Police that the person raising hue and cry was his were with a child and nothing wrong had been done.
However the woman insisted by disowning the husband. The Police guard of the bridge took Shamim Akhtar alongwith her child as well as Wajid Ali in their custody so as to take some legal action. Meanwhile the companion of Wajid Ali slipped away, leaving Wajid's family there. After some time --Muhajid Abbas Rizvi, appellant, who was posted at P.S. Kotwali, Bahawal--pur, reached the spot. He directed the guard to release Wajid Ali, Mst. Shamim Akhtar and her child from the custody as the same was unlawful. The allegation is that as the Incharge guard was not present there, the appellant misbehaved and abused the members of the guard in public. The Incharge guard made a report to the D.S.P. Saddar, Bahawalpur, was deputed to hold enquiry by the competent authority. The report of the D.S.P. Disclosed that the appellant was a close -friend of Wajid Ali who was a man of bad reputation. It is also alleged in the show-cause notice that it was also stated that Mst. Shamim was a lady of an objectionable conduct. The appellant replied to the show-cause notice and submitted that he had only intervened in the matter when he was informed by his mohallah fellow that the Police guard at the Bridge was harassing a husband, and a were. When he reached the spot, he was told by Wajid Ali that actual--ly it was nothing but a family row which resulted into exchange of harsh words and the were on this account, raised hue and cry. According to the appellant, he admonished the husband and were and certified to the Police guard that he knew both of them as such as they belong to his locality and requested them to release them from their custody. However, he denied the charge of abusing and his mishehaviour with the Police guard. The competent authority after taking into consideration the explanation of the appellant, found that the appellant was connected with people of bad reputation. He further observed that Mst. Shamim Akhtar was known as prostitute and appellant had illicit relations with her. In the concluding paragraph of his judgment the competent authority referred an event which had occurred on 3-1-1980, in which the appellant was involved in Case No. 324/30 under section 506/353/294, P.P.C., P.S. Ahmadpur East and trial was pending in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, holding that the appellant brought bad name to the Police and lowered the prestige of the Police in the public and dismissed him accordingly. Mr. Abdul Qadir Haye D.-I.G.
Police, Bahawalpur Range, heard the appellant in person and was of the opinion that close association of ex-A.S.I. With morally corrupt persons of the area and his contacts with Mst. Shamim Akhtar a woman of ill repute was an established fact. He further observed that record of the appellant was relatively, good but did not give weight to the same as according to him the charges so levelled against him, had been approved. Learned D.I.G. Police main d the earlier order of dismissal. A revision/mercy petition was filed by the appellant before the I.-G.P., Punjab but no reply was received, therefore, the appellant filed this appeal before this Tribunal. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative ;'of the Depart--ment and. Have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order of dismissal has been based on extraneous matter which does not find mention in the show-cause notice, therefore, the penalty so imposed upon him for such matters would be in clear violation of the legal maxim of audi alteram partern. It has been further argued that the report of the Inquiry Officer which is on the record does not condemn the appellant to the extent, he has been so condemned by the competent authority. It was vehemently argued that the appellant's action to get the husband and were released was motivated on account of they being the residents of the locality to which the appellant belonged and extreme penalty of dismissal was uncalled for.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the para-were comments filed by the S. P., B. W. P. And has argued that the appellant's conduct was `unbecoming a police officer' as he had no business to interfere with the duties of the Police Guard of the Bridge at Bahawalpur. He has relied on the report of the D.S.P. In which it has been stated that Mst. Shamim Akhtar was a woman of bad character and the appellant was associated with him, He has also laid lot of emphasis on the case under sections 506, 530 and 294, registered against the appellant ride F.I.R. 324/8V of Police Station Ahmadpur East although the same is pending for trial.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and would refer to the report of D.S.P. Saddar which has been made basis for the dismissal of the appellant by the competent Authority. The perusal of the said report reveals that Mst. Shamim Akhtar was definitely were of Wajid Ali although a second were. It has been observed by D.S.P. That during the course of journey there was some exchange of hot words between husband and were, whereupon the husband slapped her which resulted in hue and cry and call of help by her, from the Police Guard at Sutlej Bridge. He has also opined that the appellant was a friend of Wajid Ali who was a man of bad character. He has held that the appellant scolded the Constables and got them released from their custody. It is also in the report that the Incharge Head Constable of Bridge Guard, was ill- advised to keep the woman, husband and child in his custody according to the D.S.P., the matter should have been reported to Police Station Saddar straightway. He has also depreciated the role of the appellant in which he scolded the said Guard. According to him he should have awaited for the Incharge Guard and had acted in a hasty manner.
8. In nutshell the report of the D.S.P. Disclosed that both the Incharge Guard as well as A.S.I. Have exceeded their limits of duties and it would have been better if they had solved the problem in a befitting manner and not the way in which they acted themselves. With regard to the character of Mst. Shamim Akhtar as well as Mujtahid Abbas Rizvi (appellant) the observations of the D.S.P. Are not positive but he only assumed from their behaviour at the spot that they were not persons of good character. D.S.P. Has neither referred to the criminal case against appellant at Ahmadpur East so mentioned above, nor he has recommended any drastic measure or major penalty against the appellant. In this manner the competent authority has taken a biased view on account of a case which was not mentioned in the show-cause notice and thus by all measures it would be considered to be an extraneous matter on which reliance has been placed by the competent authority. The rules and law on this point are very clear, that enquiry against a civil servant should remain within four corners of the show-cause notice and reliance on extraneous matter would tantamount to condemning a person without giving him an opportunity of being heard. I also find that the competent authority has no other source to hold the appellant guilty for misconduct except the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police which I have discussed in the earlier part of my judgment. The Deputy Superintendent of Police has only considered the appellant guilty of scolding the Const--able and has observed that seemingly Mst. Shamim Akhtar and Wajid Ali were not persons of good character and have friendship with the appellant. Strictly speaking the appellant has only been imposed major penalty on the sole ground that he was a friend of a person of bad character. Even according to Deputy Superintendent of Police, who held the inquiry against the appellant the finding was that seemingly the lady was of shady character and husband was also not a good man. Further--more, the appellant had scolded the Constables on duty at the Sutlej Bridge and asked them to release the husband and were from their unlawful custody. Beyond this anything else against the appellant, would be simply an extraneous matter, not mentioned in the show-cause notice. If the competent authority was taking serious view of criminal case already registered at Ahmadpdr East, according to him, in which the appellant was involved in the same, it was his duty to mention the same in the show-cause notice and to discuss the pros and cons of such case, so as to make him aware about the role of the appellant, so played by him in the above-mentioned case. Just mere mentioning of a fact, which is still a matter of sub judice, it would be hardly proper to make the said affair as basis for dismissal of the appellant who has 11 years of service and is regular A.S.I. Since March, 1971 with a number of commen--dation certificates. The D.I.-G. Has also mentioned in his order that the appellant was a person relatively with good record, but he was impressed by the observations of the S.P. Which were adverse in nature against the appellant, therefore, he did not consider the service record of the appellant, a point in his favour.
9. In view of the detailed analysis of the events, subsequent to enquiry of the D.S.P. And action taken against the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the punishment awarded to the appellant is not in consonance with the offence with which he was charged. An officer although belonging to a disciplined force of Police still is a human being and it would require a superlative standard of ethics to behave dispassionately in the given circumstances. What has happened in the present case is that the appellant acted on the information of his mohallah fellow when his friend good or bad, was being unncessarily detained by the Police c Guard at Sutlej Bridge 4 place hardly a few miles away from the residence. The appellant acted considering his duty as mohallah fellow and friend to get a wrong redressed, which was being inflicted on persons, so known to him.
If during this attempt some harsh words were exchanged between him and the Police Constables, one cannot take an extreme view of the situation particularly in the face of the fact that the D.S.P (Enquiry Officer), has clearly held that the role of the Constables at the Sutlej Bridge was also objectionable. I do not find from the record that the appellant had abused the Constable. The words used by D.S.P. Were (Bura Bhala Kaha). It would also be natural to assume that the A.S.I.
Being much more senior person to the Constable would certainly ad--dress his junior in a harsh tone. In these circumstances the only conclusion arrived against the appellant according to the report of the D.S.P., which is only report on the record of this case is that he should have solved this problem in more befitting manner than the way he did. Relying on the inquiry report of the D.S.P., I am of the considered opinion that major penalty of dismissal would be highly unjustified keeping in view the entire circumstances of this case and long service of the appellant with relatively good record.
10. The result is, I vary the sentence, set aside the impugned order, converting the penalty of dismissal into that of censure. However, the period from his dismissal to that of re-instatement, would be considered as leave without pay, as this will also serve a deterrent upon the appel--lant to be more careful in future. However, there will be no order as to costs.