' S. ABDUL-JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Muhammad Anwar ex-Patwari has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Assistant Commissioner/Collector Sadar Gujranwala and Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order of dismissal passed by A. C. Gujranwala, dated 31st May, 1981 and the order, dated 29th August, 1981 passed by the Commissioner whereby the appeal was dismissed, be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that one Muhammad Siddiq son of Ghulam Rasool caste Jat Ghumman resident of village Gurali asked for the copy of relevant revenue record from the appellant who was then posted at Circle Gurali. The appellant demanded Rs, 500 as illegal gratification in the first instance for this purpose but later on reduced his demand to Rs, 150.
Muhammad Siddiq approached Anti-Corruption Establishment Gujranwala and lodged F. I. R. No, 21 on 11th June, 1980 under section 161, P. P. C. Read with 5(2)47 P. C. A. And 7/14 M. L. Order at P. S. Gujranwala. This report resulted into a raid which was conducted by Mr. Hamiduddin Bhatti, Magistrate Section 30 of Gujranwala and appellant was caught while accepting Rs, 150 illegal gratification from the complainant. The competent authority served the appellant with a show- cause notice dispensing with the holding of regular enquiry under rule 6(3) of E & D Rules, 1975, as to why major penalty including dismissal from service under rule 4(1)(b) ( f ) E & D Rules, 1975, should not be imposed upon him. The appellant appeared on 18th October, 1980 before the predecessor of the competent authority and submitted a written reply to the said notice, as the predecessor of the competent authority could not finalise the proceedings the case was taken over by the competent authority which was succeeded by it. The learned A. C. Relying on the facts of F.
1. R. And the statement made by the appellant in that behalf, found him guilty and dismissed him from service. He filed an appeal against the said order but the same was disposed of as being without any merits by the learned Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore. 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 Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that according to the law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as by the Service Tribunal, the competent authority was under obligation to proceed under rule 6(4) of the E & D Rules by holding an independent enquiry, if he was reluctant to wait for the result of the judicial case so pending against the appellant. According to the learned counsel the learned A. C. As well as learned Commissioner have bypassed the settled law in the matter, therefore, the impugned order against the appellant were of no legal consequence.
5. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the competent authority was justified to place reliance on the evidence so available in the raid conducted against the appellant and was, therefore, justified to proceed against him under rule 6(3) of E & D Rules, 1975.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so raised before us and relying on our own decision in case of Anisur Rehman v. I.-G. P., Punjab (Appeal No, 729/763 of 1980) and few others wherein it was held that the competent authority had either to wait for the result of the judicial proceedings so pending against the appellant or to initiate regular enquiry into the charge of corruption so levelled against him through Enquiry Officer and then could take proper action against him. We have also held in a number of cases that when a civil servant is charged with allegation of corruption, regular enquiry is a must and dispensing of the same is liable to result into injustice.
7. In view of the law laid down we proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct the competent authority to either hold a regular enquiry against the appellant under rule 6(4) of E & D Rules or to wait for the result of judicial proceedings so pending against him. The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service so that he should acquire the status of a civil servant for the proceedings to be initiated against him.
8. However, there will be no order as to costs.