' MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).-Muhammad Yasin and Abdul Rashid, ex-Constables have filed these appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act 1974 in which they have impleaded the Superintendent of Police Faisalabad, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range Sargodha and the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents. By virtue of these appeals they have prayed that the orders passed by the respondents Nos, 1, 2 and 3 dated 18th June, 1980, 9th September, 1981 and 30th August, 1982 be set aside and they be re- instated in service w. e. f. The date of their dismissal from service with all back benefits.
2. Since both the appellants were dismissed by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad on the same allegations and since the question of law and facts involved in both the appeals are identical and they were also dismissed from service through the order of the same date on the same allegations so it has been considered expedient to decide both the appeals together by a single judgment.
3. Brief facts of the cases are that while the appellants were posted as Traffic Constables at Faisalabad they were served with show-cause notice, dated May, 1980, whereby they were called upon to show cause as to why they should not be dismissed from service on the allegation of receiving an illegal gratification of Rs, 200 from Nazir Ahmad, truck Driver of Truck No, 2293/DN. The appellants have submitted replies to the show-cause notices and they were also heard in person by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad. The Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad was not satisfied with their explanations offered by the appellants and they were dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 18th May, 1980. The appellants submitted appeals before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha which were also rejected vide order, dated 9th September, 1981. Revision of the appeals were similarly dismissed by the Additional Inspector- General of Police, Punjab, Lahore vide order, dated 30th August, 1983. However, it would be pertinent here that simultaneously with the departmental proceedings the case for receiving an illegal gratification was also registered under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against the appellants and the accused Muhammad Yasin and Abdul Rashid were sent up for trial before the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption Sargodha Division, Sargodha Camp Faisalabad who acquitted them under section 249-A, Cr. P. C. Vide his order, dated 17th November, 1980. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants and the learned District Attorney representing the respondent. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that allegation against the appellants were admittedly with regard to receiving an illegal gratification and the charge being that of corruption, he dispensing with the regular enquiry by the Superintendent of Police was an arbitrary exercise of his discretion vested in him under rule 6 (3) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. He has further submitted that although the appellants were acquitted on the same charge after holding a regular trial by the learned Special Judge Anti- Corruption which fact was brought to the knowledge of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police and the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore yet they were not exonerated of the charge. On the other hand it has been argued by the learned District Attorney that the acquittal of the appellants was not honourable and they were only acquitted by giving the benefits of doubts. It has further been argued on behalf of the respondents that the appellants had admitted before Nazir Ahmad, A. S.-I. Of their having received the illegal gratification and the conduct of the appellants in offering to return a sum of Rs, 200 to the Truck Driver clearly denotes that they were guilty of charge.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record very carefully with their assistance. It is the common case between the parties that the appellants were served with a notice under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency. And Discipline)
Rules, 1975 in which the allegation of receiving of Rs, 200 as an illegal gratification from Nazir Ahmad, Truck Driver at place in Jhang Bazar was levelled and that no regular enquiry was conducted by appointing an Enquiry Officer. We have also satisfied ourselves by going through the show-cause notice and the impugned order in this behalf. We have already held in a number of cases that in charges of receiving illegal gratification, it would be in the interest of justice to appoint an Enquiry Officer for conducting a regular enquiry to thrash out the matter and dispensing with the same under rule 6(3) just by issuing a show-cause notice, would be an arbitrary exercise of powers of the Departmental Authorities. Since the evidence against the appellant was coming from oral statements so it was all more essential for the Superintendent of Police to have appointed an Enquiry Officer for conducting a regular enquiry against the appellant.
Thus, we are on the considered opinion that the departmental authorities have not conducted in accordance with the law when they have dispensed with the enquiry in the instant case which has prejudiced the accused. Since the appellants were sent up to the Court of Special Judge Anti- Corruption so we have also gone through the judgment dated 17th November, 1980, so relied upon by the appellants as Annexure 'D'. By minutely going through the judgment have observed that while acquitting the accused (appellants) under section 249-A, Cr. P. C. The contradiction in the statements of witnesses have heavily and unduly weighed in the mind of the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption. Thus, we are afraid that we cannot term the acquittal of the appellants as honourable.
6. In view of the above analysis we accept the appeals and set aside the impugned orders and direct that the appellants be re-instated into service. Since the conduct of the appellants were not entirely free from blemish, so they will not be entitled to any financial benefits for the C period they remained out of service, which will be treated as extraordinary leave. However, if so advised the departmental authorities can conduct a de novo enquiry by appointing an Enquiry officer into the matter. However, there will be no order as to costs.