' FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER).-- Ghulam Abbas has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the respondents as mentioned above.
2. Appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 22-10-1981 and 21-6-1983/20-8-1983 be set aside and the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages be restored.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a show-cause notice while he was posted as A.S.1. And officiating as S.H.O Police Station Satiana. He investigated case F.I.R No,230, dated 13/14-12-1980 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Police Station Satiana. The appellant prepared the challan on 24-1-1981 and sent the case for scrutiny to the Prosecution Branch on 22-7-1981 after a lapse of six months without any reasonable cause or excuse. As such for the said misconduct he was directed to show cause why under rule 3, Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975 be inflicted major penalty including dismissal from service by way of general Police Proceedings. The appellant filed the written statement and was also heard in person. The appellant could not prove himself innocent and vide order dated 22-10-1981 he was inflicted the penalty of reduction in pay by two stages. Before issue of impugned orders the Superintendent of Police considered the points of the appellant i,e, he worked out the case intelligently and thereafter handed over the challan to the local police without having the same forwarded by any senior Officer. The appellant also requested for pardon. The appellant was summoned for personal hearing but he did not turn up and found absent from the police lines. Subsequently the appellant filed an appeal before the D.I.-G. Which was rejected. Hence this appeal.
4. The grounds for the appeal are the appellant had good record of service and merely on basis of the delay in single case he was inflicted the penalty which was not provided under the Police Act.
The appellant's counsel relied upon the Police Act, 1861 regarding infliction of penalty. According to him the Punjab Police E a D Rules, 1975 were ultra vires because these were inconsistent with the Police Act, 1861. The appellant's counsel further argued that the appellant stood already punished by the order of dismissal vide Order No, 2184/Steno, dated 22-10-1981 of the Superintendent of Police read with show-cause notice No,88, dated 23-6-1981 for not handing over the files. On his appeal his penalty of dismissal has converted to censure thus he could not be punished twice, regarding the same item.
5. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant asserted that the appellant should not have been issued show-cause notice on the questioned delay of 6 months after completion of the investigation. Besides that the penalty so inflicted is harsh and was not provided under the Police Act. Besides the impugned order amounted to second penalty . For this reason the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned Deputy District Attorney opposed the appeal on the ground that the appellant was guilty of gross misconduct by delaying a case for six months after completion of investigation and should have been inflicted even more severe punishment. He submitted that the appellant was rightly punished under rule of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 proceedings as the said rules are in force and fully applicable to the appellant. The Deputy District Attorney further stated that the perusal of his service record indicates that he has been punished rightly.
6. We have carefully considered the points so raised by both the parties and have also perused the relevant record of this case.
7. We are of the considered opinion that the appellant did not contest or deny that the challan was prepared on 24-1-1981 of the murder case under section 302/34, P.P.C., Police Station Satiana. The plea of the appellant that he handed over the challan papers to his successor but during the personal hearing he says that he handed over the challan papers to the Moharrir. This plea of the appellant appears to be flimsy. Under section 167, Cr.P.C. If the investigation could not completed within 24 hours the accused alongwith copies of the Daily Diary has to be forwarded to the nearest Magistrate for seeking remand on the whole not exceeding than the 15 days. As such under section 167, Cr.P.C. Read with 173, Cr.P.C. The Final report under oridinary parlance has to be submitted in the Court of the Magistrate within 15 days. There is no provision in the Code or any other law for adjournment of the case after completion of the investigation beyond the period of 15 days. It is further added that under section 173, Cr.P.C. Every investigation has to be completed without unnecessry delay and the officer incharge of the Police Station has to forward the case to the competent Magistrate. The delay of 6 months after completion of investigation is unprecedented. It is also pointed out that the law is very favourable to the accused as the accused could get a bail at least interim bail if no challan is sent within the prescribed period. We find the appellant guilty of gross misconduct for sitting over the case for six months after completion of the investigation. The appellant also did not hand over the instant case to any other senior officer for transmission to the prosecution Branch. Since he was himself the S.H.O. He was the responsible under section 173, Cr.P.C. For transmission of the challan.
8. However, one material point in favour of the appellant is that F.I.R. No,230, dated 14-12-1980 under section 302/34, P.P.C., Police Station Satiana shown at Sr.No,7 of show-cause notice No,88, dated 23-6-1981 alongwith 10 more such cases the appellant was punished to the penalty of dismissal vide Order No, 2184/Steno, dated 22-10-1981 which was converted to the censure by the D.I.-G.
Police. As such in the interest of justice it may not be proper to punish the appellant for the second time of the same offence.
9. Hence, in the instant case the guilt against the appellant is established but he should not be punished for the second time when he had already been punished as mentioned above. 'Thus, the appeal is accepted to the extent i,e, we confirm the findings but we do not confirm the repetition of the punishment and the order of punishment is set aside.
' There will be no order as to costs.