' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-- Ahmad Shah, retired Head Constable No, 98, of Sargodha District has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha and the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 3-11-1980, 27- 12-1981 and 26-10-1983 be set aside and the appellant be re-instated in service w,e,f, 3-11-1980 with full benefits of pay and allowances.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while posted at Bridge Guard Khushab in the year 1980, was served with a show-cause notice on 7-10-1980 by the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha for charges of corruption as per details given in the show-cause notice at Annexure 'A'. The appellant was proceeded under the rule 6(3) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, for which no further enquiry by way of appointment of an Enquiry Officer was considered necessary. The appellant submitted reply to the show-cause notice which was considered by the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha and was found unsatisfactory. As the appellant was found guilty of the charges levelled against him, he was dismissed from service vide order, dated 3-11- 1980 of respondent No,l. The appellant made an appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha, which was rejected vide order, dated 27-12-1981. The appellant made a revision petition to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and the punishment of dismissal was converted to compulsory retirement from the date of his dismissal vide order, dated 26-10-1983 of respondent No,3. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties i,e,, Mr. M.A. Riaz, Advocate for the appellant and the learned District Attorney on behalf of the respondents.
5. On the outset it has been submitted by the learned counsel for he appellant that the appellant was proceeded against the charges of corruption but no regular enquiry was conducted against him. He has been proceeded under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, wherein the enquiry was dispensed with by the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that this is against the law already settled by this Tribunal in so many cases, relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan that in a case involving charge of corruption, conducting of a regular enquiry is must. He has referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and this Tribunal reported as 1980 PLC (C.S.) 418; 1980 PLC (C.S.) 611; 1980 PLC (C.S.) 562 and PLD 1974 SC 393 that in case involving charges of corruption, it is incumbent for the competent authority to hold a regular enquiry. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this case no enquiry of any sort was held against the appellant and he has been punished arbitrarily without proving the charges against him, Thus, the punishment awarded to the appellant is unlawful and cannot be sustained.
Keeping in view the law settled as mentioned above, he has prayed that the impugned orders be quashed.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has relied upon the parawise comments submitted by the respondents on this appeal. He has submitted that various reports of corruption were received against the appellant regarding conducted illegal traffic checking without any authority for ulterior motives for striking bargain for release of their documents of the challans of the parties. Hence, there was sufficient proof on record against the appellant. Thus, it was not considered necessary to hold a regular enquiry in view of the evidence available against the appellant. The appellant has been proceeded in accordance with the law; no exception can be taken against the impugned orders which are lawful and correct orders.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record in this case. This Tribunal has already held in so many cases, relying upon the judgments of this Tribunal and the Supreme Court of Pakistan, reported as 1980 PLC (SC) 418, 1980 PLC (C.S.)
611, 1980 PLC (C.S.) 562 and PLD 1974 SC 393; that in cases involving charges of corruption, it is incumbent for the competent authority to hold a regular enquiry. Record of this case shows that the appellant was charged with serious charges of corruption but no regular enquiry was held and the appellant was not given an opportunity for producing the witnesses in his defence or to prove his innocence. Since the provision of the rules has not been complied with to hold a regular enquiry, hence the impugned orders cannot be sustained.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the competent authority i,e, the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha for proceeding in accordance with the law as indicated above. The appellant is directed to be re-instated in service to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant to enable the authority to proceed against him. The fate of the period for which the appellant remained out of service will also be decided by the competent authority after conducting the proceedings in accordance with the law as indicated above.
' There are no order as to costs. , case remanded. 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.