' Ahmad Khan, formerly Head Constable No,903 has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Khushab, D.I.-G. Of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha and the Additional Inspector-General. Of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 12-7-1982, dated 2-12-1982 and the final order, dated 16-11-1983 be set aside and appellant be re-instated in service w,e,f, 12-7-1982 with full back benefits of pay, allowances etc.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Ahmad Khan while working as Muharrir at P.S. Cantt.
Sargodha, was served with a show-cause notice as per details given at Annexure 'A' by the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha. A reply to the show-cause notice was submitted by the appellant on 18-2-1982. The appellant was also charge-sheeted by Superintendent of Police, Sargodha on 15-5-1982. Rana Muhammad Aslam, the then D.S.P., Bhalwal, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. He submitted his enquiry report to the Superintendent of Police, Khushab, who after hearing the appellant in person, found him guilty of the charge and dismissed him from service w,e,f, 10-7-1982 vide his order, dated 12-7-1982. The appellant made an appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha but his appeal was rejected vide order, dated 2-12-1982. The appellant, then, made a mercy petition to the Additional Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, wherein the punishment of dismissal was converted to compulsory retirement from date of his dismissal vide his order, dated 16-11-1983. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the parties i,e, Mr. Masud Ahmad Riaz, the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer and has read the same before me to show that the Enquiry Officer had not held the appellant guilty of charge of accepting illegal gratification but only held that it was not within the sphere of the appellant's duty to collect an amount of Rs,150 from Siraj Din, complainant on behalf of Mr. Muhammad Hussain, Advocate. The Enquiry Officer has himself enumerated the full facts of the case that the said amount was collected by the appellant on behalf of Mr. Muhammad Hussain, Advocate which was a loan. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that if the perusal is made to the parawise comments and also the impugned orders of the respondents, it is clear that the appellant has been held guilty of misconduct of corruption charge and he has been punished on that basis. Thus, the impugned orders are not in accordance with the facts and findings of the Enquiry Officer on record. These are arbitrary and have been passed on the basis of misconception. He has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside on these grounds.
6. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments and impugned orders submitted by the respondents and has submitted that the charge of corruption has been proved against the appellant without any shadow of doubt by the Enquiry Officer, as well as by the respondents and no exception can be taken against the well-considered impugned orders of the respondents.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have perused very carefully the enquiry report dated 18-6-1984 of Rana Muhammad Aslam, the then D.S.P., Bhalwal. The conclusion/finding of the enquiry given at the end of the enquiry report, is reproduced below:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' These findings clearly mention that the appellant was not found guilty of corruption charge but he was found guilty of irregularity for accepting or Rs, 150 from Mr. Siraj Din, complainant on behalf of Mr. Muhammad Hussain, Advocate. Thus, it is a fact that the charge of accepting illegal gratification as levelled in the show-cause notice as well as in the charge-sheet have not been proved against the appellant. If a reference is made to the impugned order, dated 12-7-1982 of Superintendent of Police, Khushab through which the appellant was dismissed, it has been mentioned "the fact is that he accepted Rs, 150 with ulterior motive. The prima facie charge of corruption stands proved against him." Thus, it is evident that the appellant has been dismissed (by respondent No,1)/compulsory retired (by respondent No,3) on the basis of a charge which was not proved against him. The charge proved against him by the Enquiry Officer is that only of an irregularity and not of a corruption. Thus, I consider that the punishment awarded to the appellant is not inconsonance with his guilt and the punishment so awarded to him by respondents Nos, 1 and 3 is based on misconception.
8. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the appellant is re-instated in service and the punishment so awarded to the appellant is modified/varied as follows:-
(i) Censure.
(ii) Stoppage of next increment of two years without cumulative effect.
' The impugned orders are set aside and the appeal is accepted to the extent as indicated above.
However, the period for which the appellant remained out of service shall be treated as leave of kind due.
' There are no orders as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.