S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-,Messrs Raja Javaid Ahmad, Saif Ullah, Irshad Ullah, Abbas raider, Ikramul Haq, Muhammad Arshad, Munawar Khan, Ghulam Miran and Liaqat Ali have filed these appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 19 4, in which they have impleaded Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala and D. l.-G. Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala, as respondents.
2. By virtue of these appeals they have prayed that the impugn order dated 17-5-19$1 and the final order dated 2-3-1982/5-3-1982, be set aside and the appellants be re-instated in services with full benefits of pay, allowaces, seniority, etc.
3. As all the orders id these appeals re passed by the same authorities viz. c. P., Gujranwala and lay the D. 4.-G. Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala and being of the same date arising out of same incident with almost identical point of law as well as facts of the case, we will decide sill these appeals by our this single judgment.
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 4-S-1981, Syed Baqar Ali Shah, the then` S. P. Gujranwala, entered the premises of office and noticed that some of the Members of First Reserve were sitting near the table of Complaint Clerk under a tree or were present in the office premises. The S. P. Took a serious notice of indiscipline of the Members of First Reserve and called upon the appellant Raja Javaid Ahmad ex-S.I. To explain the circumstances as to why the force had been allowed to conduct themselves in the above manner. The appellant Raja Javaid Ahrsad replied that since no other place was available, they were sitting under the shadow of the trees to save themselves from the heat. The. S. P. Got infuriated when the said explanation was tendered and, started abusing the S. I. Raja Javed Ahmad in the presence of the officers/officials working in the District Police Office.
After some time the appellant Raja Javaid Ahmad went to the S. P. In order to present the daily statement of the Reserve but he again abused the appellant in a most filthy language. The appellant after these two incidents recorded a detailed report about the above mentioned episode fit the daily diary and proceeded to meet the D. I.-G. In his office to make a complaint of the said incident. After reaching the D. I.-G. Office the appellant met the D. S.I'. Mr. Muhammad Ashraf and told him the entire story. He also presented a written application in which the entire incident was recorded. He insisted for an immediate interview. The application of the appellant was taken to the D. I.-G. After about 14 hours the Additional S. P. Told the appellant that since the application has not been forwarded by the concerned officer, he could not be granted interview by the D. I: G. Police.
The appellant remained sitting. Outside the Range Office upto 3 p. m. When he returned to the District Police Lines, in the meanwhile the orders of suspension of the appellant were issued by the S. P. Syed Baqar Ali Shah. On the morning of 5-5-1981, the Personnel. Of the First Reserve refused to go for parade as well as declined to take their meals and perform their duties. S. P. Reached the District Police Lines and tried to pacify the striking men of the 1st Reserve but to no effect. The number of striking persons started increasing a proximately 40 to 50 in all. This situation brought D.
S.P. (Hqr.) and D. S. P., Gujranwala at the spot who tried to pursuade the striking men to come back to their duties but without success. The D. I: G. Police, Gujranwala Range as well as Additional D. I.-G.
Also reached the Police Lines to end this situation. However, on the assurance of D. I.-G., Gujranwala Mr. Manzoor Ahmad, that striking persons would not be victimised, the striking persons assumed their normal work. The D. I: G. Police re-instated the appellant Raja Javaid Ahmad. The episode closed at 10-30 a. m. Different enquiries were held at different times by the two D. I.-Gs. And the Special Branch in order to go into the root cause of the affair and to find out how far the appellants and their colleagues were responsible for this act of insubordination. According to the. Result of the enquiries held, it was found that the appellant Raja Javaid Ahmad and eight others namely Ghulam Miran and Ghulam Abbas Head Constables and Ikramul Haq, Saif Ullah, Irshad Ullah, Muhammad Arshad, Munawar Khan and Liaqat Ali Constables were the ring leaders of the entire episode. S. P. Malik Hamid Aslam the competent authority proceeded against all of them under Special Police Proceedings under Punjab Police (E do D) Rules and after giving them personal hearing, dismissed them from service. All the appellants filed appeals before the D. I.-G. Police which stood rejected by the order of D. I.-G. Police dated 2-3-1982. Hence these appeals.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the entire record of this case carefully with their assistance as well as certain record which was seen by us exclusively as the same was of secret nature.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impug--ned orders, are liable to be quashed both on legal as well as on factual plane. He has taken a precise legal objection by submitting that rule 9 of the Punjab Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules, regarding Special Police Proceedings has clearly laid down in clause A, that the competent authority by order in writing, would inform the accused officer of the action pro--posed to be taken against him and ground of the action and require him to submit explanation within a specific period. According to learned counsel in the present cases no such order in writing was passed and none of the appellants were informed about the action so proposed to be taken against them and were also not required to submit their explanation within the specified period. In this way, it has been vehemently argued that the very proceedings under rule 9 was violative of the said rules and cannot be sus--tained in any manner whatsoever. With regard to the merits of the case it has been submitted that there was no evidence on the record to show that there were concerted efforts on the part of the appellants either to go on strike themselves or to instigate others whereas the factual position was that the incident took place due to use of filthy language by S. S. P. Syed Baqir Ali Shah against the appellant Raja Javaid Ahmad in the presence of his subordinates who took to their hearts as they were already depressed with the behaviour of the S. S. P. Towards Police officers by abusing them of and on as well as taking uncalled for punitive action. Learned counsel has also taken us into the background of certain facts to show that the relations between appellant Raja Javaid Ahmad and the S. S. P. Were already strained and the S. S. P. Was looking for the chance to victimise him. In the end learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that it has been held in all the enquiries that S. S. P. Syed Baqir Ali Shah was responsible for using filthy and abusive language against Javaid Ahmad appellant in the presence of his subordinates and in fact all that had happened, was due to his said misbehaviour. According to the learned counsel, despite unanimous findings about the misconduct of the S. S. P. No action has been taken against him by the Government but on the other hand the appellant Javaid Ahmad and eight others so serving under him, at that time, have been dismissed from service, which would be ate act of high indiscrimination.
7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the legal objection taken by tithe learned counsel for the appellant is mis--concieved as the provision of rule 9 fully bars the opportunity of any kind to the appellants in putting forth their defence when it was to the satisfac-- tion of the competent authority that in the interest of security of Pakistan, or any part thereof, it was not expedient to afford such privilege. According to the learned District Attorney this provision overrides clause (A) as well as (B) of rule 9, therefore, the proceedings initiated by the competent authority, were fully in accordance with the said rules and no exception could be taken to it.
8. With regard to the merits of the case, it has been pointed out by the learned District Attorney that during enquiry proceedings conducted by Mr. Ali Irfan Malhi, D. I.-G. Four out of nine appellants including Raja Javaid Ahmad have fully accepted in their statements that they did go on strike due to misbehaviour of S. S. P. Syed Baqir Ali Shah and only called of strike when their demands was met in the shape of re-instatement of Raja Javaid Ahmad appellant as well as .The clear cut assurance that none of them would be proceeded against later on. According to learned District Attorney it is apparent from the statements of four of the appel--lants that appellant Raja Javaid Ahmad was fully in the control of the situation as a leader and every body including D. I. G. Police were help--less before him. It has been argued that the strike was only called of when Raja Javaid Ahmad, appellant persuaded the striking force to resume their duties and to eat their meals.
Learned District Attorney has also repelled the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellants that act of dismissal of these appellants was an art of high discrimination, by submitting that the case against Syed Baqir Ali Shah was referred to the Central Government by the Governor, as he belonged to the A. P. U. G. (Police Group) and action against him could only be taken by the Central Government. However, displeasure of the Governor was conveyed and the same was placed on his Character Roll.
9. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so made by the parties and would first of all advert to the legal objections raised by the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to the proceedings taken by the competent authority under rule 9 of the Punjab Police (F & D) Rules, 1975.
Rule 9 relates to Special Police Proceedings when it is found that an enrolled Police Officer goes on strike, hunger strike, protest or demonstration or by use or threat of criminal force or in any other manner whatsoever, induces or incites any other Police Officer toy go on or participate in such strike, demonstration or protest. This rule consists of two clauses and one proviso, which we reproduce below for ready reference :--- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the authority, shall------
(a) by order, in writing, inform the accused officer of the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and grounds of the action and require him to submit his explanation within a specified period ;
(b) consider the explanation of the accused, if any, and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action, inlay award any of the punishments specified in section 7 of the Police Act, 1861.
Provided that no such opportunity shall be given cohere the authority is satisfied that in the interest of security of Pakistan or any part thereof it is not expedient to give such opportunity.
What we are to adjudicate in this cast is whether the proviso attached to this rule 9 takes away the right so conferred upon by clause (a) and "cause (b) or this proviso only relates to clause (b), which envisages reason--able opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action by the accused officers. We have pondered over this delicate question and have read this rule very carefully to reach our conclusion with regard to the controversy so raised by the parties before us.
If we hold that proviso only applies to clause (b) by taking away the opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action from the accused officer/officials and maintain that clause (a) would very much exist to be acted upon then the very purpose of the proviso becomes redundant. If the competent authority is satisfied that in the interest of security of Pakistan or any part thereof it was not expedient to give such opportunity, then the recourse to clause (a) would nullify the said purpose. Clause (a) would be available in the normal circumstances, of course subject to the circumstances so enumerated in the first paragraph of rule 1, but when the security of the country or any part thereof is at stake, clauses (a) and (b) shall have to be ignored to enable the competent authority to meet the situation.
10. In view of the above analysis of this legal aspect of the matter, we uphold the argument so given by the learned District Attorney with regard to the justification of proceedings by the competent authority under the said rule.
11. With regard to the merits of the case, we have no doubt in our mind that all this happened due to abusive language used by S. S. P. Syed Baqir Ali Shah a verdict which is in conformity, with the unanimous pinion of both the D. L.-Gs. Mr. Ali Irfan Malhi and Mr. Jehazeb Burki but at the same time we are not pursuaded to accept the plea of the strike by refusing to wear uniforms for the performance of their duties, as well as taking resort to hunger strike was only an act of the First Reserve Guard and others of their own without any instigation by all the appellants, as it is manifest from the statement of Raja Javaid Ahmad ex-S.-I. Ghulam Miran H. C., Muhammad Munawar F.C., and Ikram-ul-Haq F.C- appellants duly signed by them where they have accepted in an ambiguous term that their did go on hunger strike, refused to wear uniform for attending paradk and declined to be pursuaded by the S. S. P., D. I.-Gs. And other officers of their force to resume duty unless they succeeded in getting firm promise from lie D. I.-G. That their demands would be met in the restoration of Raja Javaid Ahmad to his office as well as a commitment as not to proceed against any one of them after they decided to respond to their call We have also satisfied ourselves from these statements that appellant Javaid Ahmad was fully in common of the situation and it was his order only which was supreme for the striking personnel at that critical juncture. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellants were only silent spectators of all that was going on at the spot on the fateful morning of 5-5-1981, and the striking force had acted either at their own or at the behest of someone else who has not been identified so far. We are alt fully aware that any self-respecting person would not scumb to filth abuses but we also do not agree that the person who would be recipient of such abusive language would create situation of law and order and instigate others to join in tine said process. In a disciplined fogy like Police and Army, the standard laid by Lord Tennyson in his poem should always be a goal to achieve. It has been stated by that famous poet that. a disciplined force like Army has not to question as to why but to do and die although vollies may thunder around them. The right course for Raja Javaid Ahmad and other appellants was to take their grievance through the proper channel against S. S. P. To the higher authorities and waist for the results. The ugly situation which was so created eras amicably controlled due to vigilance of the higher authorities who reached the scene of occurrence without any delay and stopped the infection to spread any further. Besides the statements of four of the appellants, the D. I.-G. Police has recorded voluminous evidence consisting of persons from various walks of life, numbering 24 in all including the four appellants so mentioned above, and all' of them by their evidence, have fully established on the record that this incident was nothing bus an act of mutiny by the disciplined force.
12. To view of the above we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned orders so challenged before us and dismiss these appeals as being without any merit. There will be no order try costs.