' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Messrs Ghulam Hussain Shah, Muhammad Munawar Khan, Azizuddin, Muhammad Anwar Khan and Muhammad Khan (five in number) have filed these appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the orders of S. P., Sahiwal, dated 13th March, 1976 whereby they were dismissed from service alongwith twelve others as well as against the order, dated 1st July, 1976, 9th July, 1976 and 22nd June, 1976 of the D. I.-G.
Police, Multan. They have also assailed the order of I.-G. P., dated 9th October, 1976 whereby their revision petitions stood rejected.
2. By virtue of these appeals they have prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and they may be reinstated in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that vide impugned order of S.P. Sahiwal, seventeen officers and men of Police Station 'A' Division, Sahiwal, were dismissed on a common charge of going on strike in collusion with each other, inciting Police force within and outside the district to go on strike in sympathy with them, obstructing the take over of charge by S.-I. Abdul Khaliq who was posted in place of S.-I. Ghulam Hussain and many other similar acts of defiance and mutiny. Aggrieved against this order they filed appeals before the D. I.-G. Police, Multan Range as well as revision petitions before the I.-G. P. Which were dismissed as being without any merits. All the appellants utlimately came before this Tribunal but could not succeed as their appeals were dismissed vide a detailed judgment, dated 9th October, 1978 as being without any merits. The matter did not rest there as the appellants filed C. P. L. A. Against the judgment of this Tribunal which was admitted to regular hearing and ultimately decided, vide judgment, dated 12th November, 1980. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, set aside the judgment of his Tribunal and remanded the case to be decided afresh on merits as well as on legal basis. Therefore, the case of the appellants was taken up by this Tribunal afresh on merits. Ghulam Hussain Shah also filed an appeal separately which was dismissed on 9th October.
1978. Learned counsel for the appellant made a prayer through miscellaneous application that they may be allowed to lead evidence to resolve the controversy as to their participation in the alleged strike. They were permitted to do so.
4.. As common point of facts involved is this case was identical in nature, therefore, we have decided to dispose of all these appeals by this single judgment.
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 record of this case carefully with their assistance. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that an individual protest of S.-1. Ghulam Hussain against his transfer could not be termed strike which was demonstrated by the strength of officers and men posted at Police Station A Division. It has been further sumbitted that no specific act was attributed against the appellants in the dismissal order which was general in nature without giving any cogent reasons for the ultimate action so taken under it. Learned counsel has pointed out that in fact the impugned order was made by the competent authority due to the pressure of the ruling party as one of its functionary was involved in confrontation with S.-I. Ghulam Hussain Shah. It was further argued that in case of the appellants the golden principle of natural justice has been violated as none of them was given sufficient chance to present their case. While arguing the case at length the learned counsel has also assailed the application of rule 9 by submitting that the formalities so laid down therein were not fulfilled, therefore, the dismissal order was 'unjustified. An exception has been taken to the procedure adopted by the competent authority by dismissing 17 officers and men without adverting to the procedure so laid down under the Punjab Police E & D Rules.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that there is ample evidence on the record to show that all the appellants collaborated and supported S.-I. Ghulam Hussain, the leader of this strike, therefore, they are enqually guilty with him. It has been submitted that the evidence led by the respondents and appellants fully involved the appellants in this case, therefore, it cannot be said that they were not guilty of the offence for which they have been punished.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the proposition so prepounded before us by the parties and would like to give the resume of the prosecution version before we enter into the assessment of the evidence so produced before us by both the parties. In the impugned order the S. P. Ch. Mukhtar Ahmad, who also appeared before us is R. W., indicated that there was general resentment against S.-I. Ghulam Hussain Shah No, 31/M, S. H.
0. P. S. 'A' Division, Sahiwal about his misbehaviour with the public. On 6th March, 1976 wordy dual took place between S. I. Ghulam Hussain on one hand and Mr. Askari Hassan, Chairman P. P. P., District Sahiwal on the other. The reasons for this confrontation was that Mr. Askari Hassan visited the P. S. Alongwith lqbal Muhammad Chaths to seek interview with Babur Iqbal a suspect in car theft cases. This led into complaints which came to the notice of D. C. Who addressed a D.
0. Letter to the S. P. Suggesting therein the transfer of S.-I. Ghulam Hussain and taking action against him. S. P., Sahiwal transferred the S.-I. Ghulam Hussain temporarily from P. S. 'A' Division to Police Lines. The said S. P. Directed S.-I. Abdul Khaliq, who also appeared before us as witness, to take over the charge of P. S., from S.-I. Ghulam Hussain who refused to hand over the same and defied the transfer order which has been termed by the S. P. As an act of strike. The prosecution has further enfold the part of 5.-I. Azizuddin, A. S. I. Muhammad Khan, etc., which according to it were main collaboraters with S.-I. Ghulam Hussain the leader and incited the 14 others Police officers and men including the two of the appellants i. e., Muhammad Munawar and Muhammad Anwar Khan. There is also mentioned the names of 12 persons who are mainly constables. It is also the case of prosecution that with the strength of the officers who were 37 in number and all of them with common object defied lawful order of transfer, resorted to protest and strike, and also incited the Police within the district and outside Sahiwal district, to go on strike in sympathy with them. A number of other acts have been attributed to them for example closing the main gate of the P. S., refusing entry to every one including the supervisory officer D. S. P. H. Q, hoisting of black flag, splashing in writing posters on the walls, giving telegrams direct to other Police officials and transmitting the conditions of the same to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Chief Minister, Punjab, I.
G.-P., Punjab, Commissioner, Multan Division and D. I.-G. Police, Multan Range, Multan.
8. The Supreme Court of Pakistan while setting aside the judgment of this Tribunal has observed that the Tribunal was under obligation of looking into evidence and then come to the conclusion as to who were the persons, who factully had participated in the strike as the order of the S. P. Did not discuss the defence plea and the same was not adverted to by the Tribunal.
9. The appellants have produced Abdul Khaliq retired S.-I. As A. W. 1, Noor Muhammad Khan also a retired Police Officer as A.W. 2 supported by their own statements i. e., Muhammad Anwar Khan as A. W. 3, Azizuddin appellant as A. W. 4, Muhammad Khan appellant as A. W.
5. Muhammad Munawar Khan Appellant as A. W. 6, Ghulam Hussain Shah has produced in his defence Mr. Shamim Ahmad, Advocate, Sahiwal and Mr. Pervez Tahir a, Journalist supported by his own statement as A. W.
8. Whereas prosecution has produced Mr. Askari Hassan, Advocate R. W. 1, Mr. Khan Zaman Khan, Asstt. Director, Anti-Corruption R. W. 2, Umer Hayat A. S.-I. R. W. 3, and Ch. Mukhtar Ahmad Gondal, Director Pakistan Norcotics Control Board, Peshawar (competent authority in this case) as R. W.
4. The crux of the evidence so produced on behalf of the appellants is that the appellants were only associated with Ghulam Hussain Shah upto the stage of impending judicial enquiry and had pledged him full support for the same. The witness appearing on their behalf admitted and they themselves have vehementjy denied of taking any part in the alleged strike which according to the respondents was a fait accompli. The evidence on behalf of the appellants comprised of two retired Police Officers who were retired under section 12 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 after completing 25 years' service qualifying for pension as they have outlived their utility in the Police Force. It is not so safe to place reliance on their evidence as they have come forward to defend their compliances without any apprehension of any action which might have been taken against them, if they would have been in Police Department. Both these witnesses have admitted that although they visited the Police Station but they failed to register their arrival report or departure report in the Roznamcha as required under the rules. They have not been able to satisfy us as to how they visited the place of occurrence on the fateful night with the exception of Abdul Khaliq who was of course a person who had to take charge from Ghulam Hussain Shah under the orders of S. P. He has clearly admitted in his examination-in-chief that he suggested Ghulam Hussain to accompany him to S. P. And got his grievance redressed rather resorting to strike. This Abdul Khaliq has also admitted that when Ghulam Hussain accompained him for the purpose to visit S. P. They were confronted with a number of Constables when asked them to get down from the jeep. According to the appellant's own witness, Ghulam Hussain got down and did not accompany the witness to S. P. House. He has also further stated that when he came back he found the gate of the P. S. Was closed. However he has exonerated Muhammad Khan, Muhammad Munawar Khan, Azizuddin all the three appellants about whom he has stated that they were not present and one of them Anwar Khan came out of the Police Station and accompanied him for police duty. He also denied that he did see any black flag hoisted on the Police Station. Noor Muhammad Khan has confirmed in his examination-in-chief that he also accompanied Mr. Abdul Khaliq A. W. 1 when he went to P. S. 'A' Division to take over charge from S.-I. Ghulam Hussain Shah and has confirmed that Ghulam Hussain Shah refused to comply with the same and started slogan and said that he would not submit to this unjustified transfer. The main stress which he has laid in his evidence is to the fact that factually this was not an act of strike against Government by Ghulam Hussain whereas the same was against the act of transfer passed by S. P. At the behest of P. P. P. He has exonerated all the three appellants by saying that he never saw them at the place of occurrence. He has deposed that Ghulam Hussain Shah could not allow him to come out from P. S. And with great difficulty he succeeded in getting back and joining his S. H.
0.
10. While adverting to the evidence produced by respondents Mr. Askari Hassan Advocate was the P. P. P. Chief at the relevant time, has stated that Ghulam Hussain Shah appellant, abused him over an issue of detenu whom the witness wanted to see and this matter was brought to the notice of S. P. He has further confirmed that on the 9th March, 1976 the Bar Association, Sahiwal passed a resolution condemning the action of Gulam Hussain Shah who had gone on strike and removed the National Flag by substituting the same with another flag. He has called the act of Ghulam Hussain an open rebellion. He has produced copy of daily Maghrabi Pakistan in support of his contention. He also brought on record a copy of daily Siasat, dated 9th March, 1976 and a photograph of poster pasted on the gate of the Bar Room, which also shows that there was a demand from the said Association for the transfer of the appellant Ghulam Hussain Shah. His main evidence is against Ghulam Hussain Shah appellant. R. W. 2 is Khan Zaman Khan Assistant Director, Anti-Corruption, Sahiwal has stated that he received a telephonic message from P. S. 'A' Division on 8th March, 1976, when he was posted as P. D. S. P. District Sahiwal. In that message he was asked to join strike alongwith persons of 'A' Division. He rans up to Ch. Mukhtar Ahmad Gondal R. W. 4 who directed him to go to P. S. And to assess the situation. According to the evidence he found the main gate as well as windows of the P. S. Closed. After he was identified he was allowed to enter in. He found a large number of Police personnel stationed at the said station who gathered around him.
According to this witness this was an act of strike, which was admitted by Ghulam Hussain himself.
This witness has further stated that the appellant Ghulam Hussain was willing to call off strike if his demands were met. However, he has not named the other appellants specifically as participant of the said strike. R. W. 3 Umer Hayat A. S.-I. Has involved almost all the appellants and has stated that he was inside the Police Station all along during that night as being posted at that place. He has admitted his own part to the extent that he kissed the holy Quran but refused to support the S. H.
0. Any further. He has also stated that he saw black flag hoisted alongwith Pakistan flag at the Police Station. He has named Azizuddin as one of the participants who was present at the spot. By referring to his earlier statement he has accepted that he has only involved Muhammad Khan and Ghulam Hussain Shah. He had also stated that Anwar Khan participated in the strike. Last of all is the evidence of Ch. Mukhtar Ahmad Gondal who was S. P. That dismissed the appellants from service vide impugned order and has fully supported his action by submitting that be had ample material before him to come to the conclusion that the appellants had participated in the strike at the behest of Ghulam Hussain Shah the leader of the mutiny but has ultimately accepted that the only person against whom he had no material for his dismissal was Muhammad Munawar Khan A.
S.-I. In this manner he has exonerated Muhammad Munawar Khan from the act of strike and has admitted that his order of dismissal so passed by him was not based on any material against him.
11. We have taken into consideration prosecution evidence as well as evidence of the appellants and are of the considered opinion that the evidence of Khan Zaman Khan, Ch. Mukhtar Ahmad Gondal and A. S. I. Umer Hayat is very convincing. We also cannot reject out right the statement of Mr. Askari Hassan which is supported by documentary evidence. We are fully convinced that Ghulam Hussain Shah, did act on A strike on the fateful night as he was annoyed over the order of transfer for confrontation with Mr. Askari Hassan and his subordinates i. e. The appellants now before us did join him. The evidence of Abdul Khaliq all along leads to resistable inference that the strike did take place and Ghulam Hussain Shah was its leader. This statement has been made by appellants' own witness and keeping in view the overall evidence so produced before us we are convinced that the strike did take place and all the appellants with the exception of Muhammad Munawar Khan did participate in the same. For the innocence of Muhammad Munawar Khan we base our findings on the evidence of R. W. 4 of Ch. Mukhtar Ahmad Gondal who was S. P. At the relevant time and it was he who dismissed Muhammad Munawar Khan vide his impugned order.
The author of the order is the best judge of his own judgment and we must believe his interpretation. If this officer had realised his mistake may be after 5 years the same must be considered as a candid admission of his erotic judgment. After all to err is human. We relying on the evidence of R. W. 4 who was competent authority at the proper time coupled with the statement of Muhammad Munawar Khan himself, accept the appeal of Muhammad Munawar Khan.
12. With regard to the legal objection so raised in this case for noncompliance of procedure, as laid down under rule 7 of the E & D Rules, it would be sufficient to say that Supreme Court of Pakistan has repelled this plea, and we are not in a position to open the same.
13. In view of the above we direct that Muhammad Munawar Khan be re-instated in service from the date he was so removed with all back benefits, whereas we proceed to dismiss the appeals of Ghulam Hussain Shah, Azizuddin, Muhammad Anwar Khan and Muhammad Khan as being without any merits. However, there will be no order as to costs.