' ABDUL HAM1D CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Javed Akhtar, Ex-Constable No, 1730, C. I. A. Staff, Faisalabad has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the respondents mentioned above.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 19th August, 1982 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, order, dated 11th October, 1983 passed by the respondent No, 2 and the order, dated 21st August, 1984 passed by the respondent No, 1 be set aside and the appellant be re-instated in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while posted in C. I. A. Staff alongwith Constable Muhammad Nawaz No, 1235 was caught red-handed by the Anti-Corruption Establishment while receiving Rs, 250 as illegal gratification from one Mansab Ali. A case F. I. R. No, 26, dated 10th June, 1982 under sections 161, P. P. C. And 5(2) 47, P. C. A. Was registered against both the accused ex- Constables. Both the accused constables were served with show-cause notices. The appellant submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. Before deciding his case, the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad took into Consideration the fact that the criminal case against the appellant is pending adjudication from a Court and its fate is also known which due to social and moral degradation in all probability would result in acquittal due to greater chances of winning over the witnesses or his resiling from his original statements. However, the fact of his taking illegal gratification was proved.
Consequently the appellant was dismissed w. e. f. 16th August, 1982 by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad vide Order No, 1509.10/St, dated 17th August, 1982/No, 1037, dated 19th August, 1982. The appellant made an appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad which was rejected on the basis that the case was pending trial in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Establishment and there was no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad. The appellant made an appeal-cum-review petition before the Inspector-General of Police Punjab, Lahore which was also rejected vide order, dated 21st August, 1984. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties, i,e,, Ch. Mushtaq Masood, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Masood Ahmad Ghuman, the learned Deputy District Attorney, assisted by the representative of the. Department on behalf of the respondents.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this case is on all fours with the case of other co-accused, decided on 12th November, 1984 by this honourable Tribunal in Case No, 262/770 of 1984, Muhammad Nawaz v. Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad and D. L-G. Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad. Relying on the above judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal the appellant's counsel has submitted that the appeal of the other co-accused, Muhammad Nawaz who was involved in the same case, was accepted and the impugned orders were set aside, the similar decision be made applicable in the case of appellant as well by setting aside the impugned orders.
6. On the other hand the learned Deputy District Attorney, assisted by the representative of the Department, has submitted that no doubt the appellant was acquitted by the Court, but the acquittal cannot be considered as honourable acquittal, hence no benefit can be claimed by the appellant of the judgment dated 22nd March, 1984 of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption Sargodha and Faisalabad Divisions. He has also relied upon the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and has submitted that the impugned orders are correct, valid orders and no exception can be taken against the same.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case. We have also perused the earlier judgment given in Case No, 262/770 of 1984, decided on 12th November, 1984 in case of Muhammad Nawaz v. Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad and the D. I.-G. Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad, we find that this case is at all fours with the case of other co-accused, Muhammad Nawaz, in which a decision had already been taken by this Tribunal. Both the accused were dismissed by the same order dated 17th August, 1982/19th August, 1982 by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad and both of them were acquitted by the same judgment dated 22nd March, 1984 of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Division, Sargodha. We have already held in case of other co-accused, Muhammad Nawaz in our judgment mentioned above as follows :- "Para.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case. We have already held in a number of cases that where no regular enquiry was held and the basis on which the appellant was dismissed fell to the ground on acquittal by the Court of competent jurisdiction, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the judgment of this. Tribunal in case of Anis-ur-Rehman v. D. I.-G.
Police, Lahore as mentioned above, Appeal No, 729/763 of 1980, announced on 8th July, 1981 relevant portion of that judgment is reproduced below :- 'In view of the facts that the basis on which the appellant was dismissed from service has fallen to the ground by the detailed and well-reasoned judgment of the Court of competent jurisdiction, which still holds the field, and in the absence of a regular enquiry which was a must in this case, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The result is that we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order as being of no legal effect and direct that the appellant be re-instated in service from the date of his suspension in the office he was holding at the relevant time, as if he had not been removed from the service at all, with all the back benefits.'
' The present case of the appellant is on all fours with the above judgment of this Tribunal. No regular enquiry was held in the present case of the appellant and the basis on which the appellant was compulsory retired has fallen to the ground as the appellant has been acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction i,e,, Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Division vide his judgment, dated 22nd March, 1984 which still holds the field. In view of this, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. The para 14 of the judgment of Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Division is reproduced below which has been concluded after analysing the entire evidence on record :-- 'In view of the above discussion I hold Muhammad Nawaz and Javed Akhtar accused not guilty of the charge of taking illegal gratification and I acquit both the accused.'
' Para,
8. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the appeal is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside as being of no legal effect. The appellant is directed to be re- instated in service from the date of dismissal compulsory retirement with all back benefits."
' In view of the above decision earlier taken in case of other co-accused Muhammad Nawaz, the above mentioned paras. 7 and 8 of our earlier judgment, in Case No, 262/770 of 1984, decided on 12th November, 1984 be read as a part of this judgment as well.
8. The result is that the appeal is accepted and the impugned order are set aside as being of no legal effect. The appellant is directed be re-instated in service from the date of dismissal with all back benefits.
' There are no orders as to costs.