' Muhammad Abdullah has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Kasur and the Deputy Inspector- General of Police, Lahore Division, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 12th February,1983 and 28th February, 1984 passed by the respondents be set aside. It has also been prayed that the punishment awarded to the appellant be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant in the month of January, 1983, while working as Head Constable at Police Station Ganda Singhwala, District Kasur was served with a show-cause notice, dated 31st January, 1983 with the allegations as detailed in the show-cause notice (Annexure 'D').
The appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice detailed at Annexure 'E'. The reply of the show-cause notice was considered by the Superintendent of Police, Kasur which was found unsatisfactory and the appellant was reverted to the substantive rank and awarded the punishment of two years of forfeiture of service, vide order dated 12th February,,1983/19th February, 1983 of respondent No,
1. The appellant made an appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, which was rejected vide his order, dated 28th February, 1984/2nd March, 1984. The appellant made a revision petition to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore. After the expiry of 90 days of this revision petition, the appellant has filed this appeal. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the parties i.e., Ch. M. Zahoor Nasir, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Masood Ahmad Ghuman, Deputy District Attorney on behalf of the respondents and assisted by representative of the respondents.
5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is against the law and facts and rules applicable to the case. The procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer was not at all warranted in law inasmuch as the appellant was not associated in the inquiry and as such the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer is arbitrary, fanciful and against the principles of law and natural justice. This enquiry report could not be used against the appellant as the same has been made ex parte. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no other material on the record to prove that any illegal gratification was received or demanded, hence the order of the reversion of the appellant is without lawful jurisdiction. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that not conceding for the sake of arguments, if the allegation levelled against the appellant is correct, the appellant is not at all responsible for this action as he had only obeyed the orders of his superiors i,e., S.H.O. And the A.S.I., Abad Ali. He has also contended that while passing the impugned orders the service record of the appellant has not been taken into consideration by the authorities.
During the whole service career, there is no allegation of any type against the appellant rather he has been appreciated by the higher authorities of his high performance. Concluding his arguments it has been prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order being arbitrary and in just be quashed.
6. On the other hand the learned Deputy District Attorney has submitted that the enquiry was only a fact-findings enquiry and if the allegations mentioned in the show-cause notice are perused, it reveals that sufficient material was available on record against the appellant and there was no necessity of holding any preliminary/regular enquiry. The appellant was found guilty of misconduct as he was found responsible, for conducting an illegal raid, in another District, without bringing it in the notice of his superior officers and without obtaining prior approval for the same. The appellant played in the hands of public, and not only illegally detained Manzoor, Hanif, and Sherif, but also tortured Muhammad Hanif. The learned Deputy District Attorney has further relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and has submitted that the appellant was punished lawfully and no exception can be taken against the impugned orders.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and I am in agreement with the learned Deputy District Attorney and respondents that there was sufficient material available on the record to proceed against the appellant by way of serving a show-cause notice under rule 6
(3) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, and by dispensing with the regular enquiry. The record of this case has been carefully perused by me which makes it clear that the raid conducted by the A.S.I. In the company of the appellant was illegal and the A.S.I. And the appellant were responsible for conducting illegal raid in other District. The appellant has not been able to rebut the stand taken by the respondents and the misconduct has been fully proved. As the misconduct stands proved against the appellant, hence, no exception can be taken against the impugned orders.
8. The result of the above discussion of the case is that there is no merit in this appeal and is dismissed as such.