Naurasab Khan ex-A. S.-I. Has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the State and D. I.-G. Police, Rawalpindi as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order by which the appellant was granted L. P. R. By the D. I.-G. Be set aside as being the result of coercion.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was called upon to explain, through a show-cause notice as to why he should not be proceeded against for committing a misconduct during the investigation of case No. 167, dated 3-12-1978, registered with the Police Station New Town, under section 380, P. P. C. The appellant submitted his reply and during the course of hearing before the S. S. P. He expressed his desire to proceed on L. P. R. As according to him he was not m a fit condition of health to perform the duties so assigned to him. The request was acceded to and the appellant proceeded on L. P. R. However, he filed an appeal before the D. I.-G. Which is undated and requested that actually he never wanted to go on L. P. R. And was coerced by the D. I.-G. To make such request on the pain of being dismissed from service by the said authority. His appeal was rejected vide order dated 7-6-1981, with the observation that the appellant had voluntarily asked for L. P.- R. As he was unfit to undergo strain of service and was physically unfit to do so. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. During pendency of the appeal the appellant had made a request that he may be allowed to lead evidence in support of the issue that he signed the application for proceeding on L. P. R. Not of his own accord but under duress by the threatening attitude of the S. S. P. He has summoned four witnesses in support of his contention. However he gave up D. I.-G. As unnecessary. The evidence was recorded by this Tribunal. He produced Amir Abdullah A. W.
1. Who has stated that his profession was of making caps for the officers of the Police Department and in that connection had visited the office of S. S. P., Rawalpindi. According to this witness he found the appellant present before the S. S. P. Who was threatening him and was asking him to sign application which was lying at his table. A. W. 2 Raja Abdul Rehman's is Lambardar who conceded that he was standing outside the S. S. P's office in Verandah, when he overheard the S. S. P. Threatening a person who seemed to be in his office. According to this witness after some time the appellant came out and told him that S. S. P. Has forced him to sign an application seeking L. P. R. Both these witnesses were brought by the appellant himself and were cross---examined by the learned District Attorney. The third witness was S. S. P. Himself who has categorically denied all these allegations and has stated that the application was made by the appellant voluntarily and no threat was extended to him by, the witness.
6. I have examined the entire evidence in detail in support of the issue so struck i.e. Application for proceeding on L. P. R. Was a willing act by the appellant or the same was under coercion. I am not at all convinced with the evidence of these two witnesses as one of them Amir Abdullah has failed to show that he was called upon by the S. S. P. To take his measurement for the cap as no record was available with him to show that this has actually happened. By common norms a tailor keeps a book or a register in which he records the measurement of the person alongwith his address to execute the order so placed on him. Moreover, S. S. P. Has unequivocally stated that the caps for the Police Officers are always got prepared from Lahore through a firm namely M. S. Chaudhry.
Moreover, it is very easy to produce a witness of this kind at one's own choice a practice very common in this country. If Amir Abdullah had witnessed this occurrence, the appellant would have certainly mentioned this event in his appeal before the D. I.-G. Similarly Raja Abdul Rehman's who claims to identify the voice of the S. S. P. Is hardly a person of any credence in view of his own admission that he was neither a friend nor a close associate of the said S. S. P. a phenomenon which would have given him the knowledge to identify this voice. He is nothing but a chance witness who claims to have met the appellant in Verandah and became champion of his case without any rhyme and reason. The failure of the appellant himself who did not mention the name of this witness in his appeal before the D. I.-G. Or before me in the appeal, would certainly destroy all the value of this evidence. To my mind this was an after--thought on the part of the appellant to produce such evidence at random. On the other hand S. S. P. Who was also witness of the appellant had demolished his entire stand by making a firm statement that nothing of this kind happened and the appellant who was emotional type of person wanted to proceed on L. P. R. As his condition of health would not allow him to stand the rigors of service.
7. To my mind there was hardly any necessity for the S. S. P. To take a recourse to this method which is claimed by the appellant as he was competent to dismiss the appellant or to retire him compulsorily after he has heard him in person in pursuance of the show-cause notice issued by his predecessor.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in case of Nooruz Zaman v. l.-G. Prisons, Punjab, in which this Tribunal held that a person who is in service can recall his earlier request for retirement if he decides to change his mind. In the present case the appeal is fully distinguishable with the case of Nooruz Zaman wherein the said Noor. Zaman had accepted that h-- voluntarily asked for retirement and changed his mind with his changed circumstances. In the present case the appellant does not accept that he ever A made an application requesting to proceed on L. P. R. And the application so placed on the record by the respondent was a result of coereion on the part of S. S. P. In this way I am of the considered opinion that impact of Nooruz Zaman case is hardly applicable in the case of the appellant.
9. In view of the above analysis of the evidence so recorded by me in this appeal, I hold that the appellant failed to show that the application signed by him for proceeding on L. P. R., was the result of the coercion on the part of the S. S. P. And on the converse I am of the confirmed view that the same was made by him at his own free will. The result is proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merits. However, there will be no order as to costs.