S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). --Qaswa r Abbas Ex-Temporary A. S. I. Police Lines Faisalabad, now resident of Chak No. 165 Tehsil and District Jhang, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded S. P. Faisalabad D. L.G.
Police Sargodha Range, Sargodha and I.-G. Police, Punjab as Respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that dismissal order of the appellant passed by Respondent No. 1 on 15th April, 1979 and maintained by Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 be declared as illegal, inopera--tive mala fide and without jurisdiction and the appellant be restored in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as A. S. I. On ad hoc basis by the order of I.-G. Police Punjab dated 29th July, 1976, with copy for information to the Chief Minister, Punjab. The appellant was sent to Training School and after. Completion of train--ing he was appointed as temporary A. S. I. In district Shang. However it came to the notice of the authorities that the appellant was a con--vict under M. L. R. No. 11 and was fined Bs. 4,000 by the Summary Military Court. At the time of recruitment the appellant had given a wrong address so as to conceal his conviction. The D. S. P. )hang was directed to look into the matter and conducted an inquiry against the appellant. The inquiry ended against the appellant and thus he was dismissed from service by the S. P. Faisalabad on 15th April, 1979 were. f. 14th April, 1979. He filed an appeal before the D. I.-G. Police Sargodha Range, which was dismissed on 24th July, 1980. He filed a revision petition before the Additional I.-G. P. Punjab but the same was rejected on 18th October, 1981. Hence this appeal.
4. We 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. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the first inquiry was held by the Jhang on anonymous application against the appellant and subsequently the second inquiry was held by the D. S. P Faisalabad but both the inquiries were illegal as the appellant was not associated in these proceedings and has been thus condemned un--heard. It has been further submitted that no copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the appellant, therefore, the procedure adopted was entirely without any legal support. It has been further argued that Respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to pass order, against the appellant as he was appointed as A. S. I. By the D. 1.-G.
Police, Respondent No. 2. In the end it was submitted that the allegations against the appellant were false as he did not provide wrong address. As regards to the conviction by the Summary Court of M. L. A. It has been admitted that such like conviction cannot be equated with the ordinary Courts under the civil laws. The appellant has also filed an affidavit that while entering into service as A. S. I. He did not withhold any sort of infor--mation which was required from him. That the appellant was not convicted for having abducted any woman, therefore, his conviction under MLR- 11, could not be considered a conviction of moral turpitude.
5. On the other hand it has been argued by the learned District Attorney that the appellant joined Department as A. S. I. On 19th August, 1976, showing himself to be resident of chak No. 165/). It P. S. Mochiwala, while in fact he was resident of village Satiana P. S. Sadar District Jhang. Learned District Attorney argued that the appellant intentionally concealed his residence at village Satiana District Jhang because he was convicted by the Summary Military Court by 9th May, 1969 for keeping an unlicensed 32 bore Pistol and on fined for Rs. 4,000. It has been further admitted that regular enquiry was conducted in this case, therefore, no grievance can be made by the appellant that he was condemned unheard. It has been stated that the appellant was served with charge sheet and statement of allega--tions on 4th February, 1979 to which he submitted a written explanation on 5th February, 1979, and, therefore, through a regular inquiry he was already held guilty of charge so levelled against him. It has also been indicated that the appellant was heard in person in Orderly Room on 14th April, 1979 and it was only then he was dismissed from service considering his verbal explanation in extenso. With regard to the affidavit of the appellant it has been submitted that the same has been made with the counter-affidavit of the Respondents.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so ad--vanced by the parties and find that the address given by the appellant in his application to the I.-G.P. Was as under:- Qaswa r Abbas, Chak No. 165/JB, P. S. Mochiwaia, Tehsil and District Jhang.
It is also on the record that the appellant was punished by the Summary Military Court on 9th May, 1969, under M.L.R.-11. This punish--ment is recorded in P. S. Kotwali district Jhang. The appellant has explained that he had left the said police station after his conviction and was shifted to P. S. Mochiwala for agriculture purpose. It may be so, but the fact remains that while making his application for appointment as A. S. I. To the I.-G. P. He should have given clean case of his entire past and should have been clearly indicated about his conviction and fine of Rs. 4,000 and was also involved in abduction case which later on did not materialise. If these facts had been conveyed to the I.-G. P. And still he decided to appoint him as A. S. I. The matter could have been different and we would have certainly not disturbed him assignment on the principle of locus poenitentiae. In the present case what we find is that this is an undisputed fact that the appellant was convicted under M.L.R-II and that is an outcome of F. I. R. Registered against him for abduction of a girl. With this un-controverted situation we are of the confirmed view that the address given in the application was positively to be intentional to avoid declaration of shady past of the appellant.
After the appellant had given his antece--dents and then had given his certain address, even then the matter can be ignored and it has been stated that -he has given two addresses and had apprised the authorities of the entire situation about this un--fortunate conviction. In the context of the above facts we are of the considered opinion that the appellant did conceal this incident and avoided to tell the authorities of such events. We also cannot ignore counter-affidavit submitted by D. S. P., Faisalabad, who is also the competent authority in the case of the appellant which it has been declared on oath, that all the facts mentioned in the affidavit of the appellant are false. At this juncture we would like to mention that the arguments of the appellant in this case that he has been dismissed by authority not competent in his case, is also without any basis. We will refer Police Department's Rules of 1978, which declares an S. P. Of the District as competent authority to deal with A. S. I. This fact find mention in schedule of Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975.
7. We have also taken into consideration the plea of the appellant that the conviction under the Martial Law Regulation did not involve moral turpitude but also found from the affidavit of S. P. That the appellant was convicted for having abducted young girl Mrs. Surriya with bad intention.
8. In view of the detailed analysis of the entire facts of the case we have no reason to interfere with the well considered orders of the S. P., D. I.-G. And I.-G. P. The result is we proceed to dismiss the appeal as being without any merits. However, the parties shall be their own costs.