' Muhammad Afzal, ex-A. S. I. No, 93, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal D. I.-G. Police, Multan Range, Multan and Additional Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 4th September, 1982, 26th December, 1982 and final order dated 25th February, 1984 be set aside and. He may be reinstated in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the S. P. Sahiwal, paid a surprise visit to P. S. Harrappa on 3rd August, 1982. He found two persons namely Hamayun and Abdullah in the P. S. Lock up. The S. P.
Enquired from the detenus as to why they were in Police lock up and they gave their version of the circumstances. They told the S. P. That they had been falsely arrested on the complaint of one Ghulam whereas they were innocent. The S. P. Came to the conclusion that the detenus were innocent and the appellant had falsely put them behind the lock up. However, the appellant, who was not present at the time of surprise visit of the S. P.. Came to the Police Station and narrated the story of the circumstances and justified his action. A report was recorded in the Roznamcha of the Police Station by the S. P. Stating all the circumstances. A further inquiry was also directed through S. D. P.
0. Noorshah to make a probe into the affairs and to ascertain whether the case was false or correct. The S. D. P.
0. Came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty. He was served with a show-cause notice to which he submitted a reply and stated that he was innocent and demanded a full-fledged enquiry as according to him he was in a position to prove that he was not guilty. However, the S. P.
Sahiwal called the appellant in orderly room, gave him personal hearing and dismissed him from service. His appeal before the D. I.-G. Police, Multan, also failed. His revision petition before the Additional I.-G. P. Punjab, Lahore, did not succeed. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has come out on the following grounds ; firstly on the legal plane that the appeal was liable to be accepted on this score alone that S. P. Being complainant should not have taken the charge of the case as well as should not have acted as Authority. For this he has relied on the case of Mukhtar Ahmad v. S. P., Attock , secondly during the preliminary inquiry the appellant was not associated and when he was being heard in person by the S. P. It was the legal obligation of the S. P. To provide him with a copy of the said inquiry report, if he was going to act upon the case. According to the learned counsel for the appellant these were sufficient grounds to set aside the orders. He has relied on in case of La! Muhammad etc. v. Government of Sind .
6. With regard to the merits of the case, it has been submitted that the appellant has been condemned unheard in a manner that he has not been given a chance to defend his position whereas he was crying hoarse that he might be given an opportunity to produce evidence in order to dislodge the impression so formed against him by the S. P. From the very beginning. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the perusal of the impugned order would show that S. P. Went to the extent to hold that the appellant was guilty of corruption also. In this manner it has been argued that it is now a settled law on this point that in case of corruption inquiry is a must as reported in PLD 1974 SC 393, further supported by the circular letter of I.-G.
Police, Punjab to all the Superintendents of Police in Punjab, that in view of the said judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, it would be incumbent upon all the competent authorities to hold regular inquiry in such cases.
7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the first objection is misconceived on the ground that the S. P. Was not the complainant in true sense but made observation (sic.) in Roznamcha of that Police Station. It has been further submitted that the S. P. Did what he could do in true sense and it would be preposterous to hold that S. P. Was a complainant against the appellant who registered the case at the Police Station. With regard to the second objection, it has been submitted that in fact preliminary enquiry was directed by the S. P. Only to ascertain the theft case but if the appellant was not associated with the same, no exception can be taken against such proceedings. As regards the allegation of corruption, learned District Attorney could not come out with any legal argument contrary to what has been held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
8. I have given my anxious thought to the argument advanced by the parties and with regard to the first contention I am inclined to' agree with the stand taken by the learned District Attorney that in fact case of Mukhtar Ahmad would not be attracted in the circumstances of the case. In this manner, I have no hesitation to repel this argument that S. P. Was complainant and cannot act as Authority in this case. With regard to the second objection the same is sustained as the law on this point is fully settled that where a preliminary inquiry is conducted into the affair and reliance is placed on the same, the competent authority is under legal obligation to provide a copy of the same to the civil servant when he is going to rely on it. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan have decided this issue in the case of La! Muhammad v. Government of Sind as under: "It is obvious from the observations which we have quoted that the Enquiry Committee's report was part of material on the basis of which the appellants had been dismissed. But, as they had never participated in this enquiry, as they had never been confronted with this report and as its author had not been made available for cross-examination,. On this ground also, the view taken by the Tribunal is illegal." In the present appeal neither a copy of the inquiry report has been provided to1 2 the appellant nor Enquiry Officer was summoned in his presence to give him a chance of cross- examination.
9. While dealing with the case of the appellant on merits I am of the confirmed view that there cannot be two opinions about the same in view of the law so settled down that where ever there is a charge of corruption, inquiry is a must. In this manner I sustain this legal objection in favour of the appellant.
10. In the light of the above discussions I prated to accept the appeal, set aside all the impugned orders as being without any legal effect, with the direction that if Department is so advised, a full- fledged inquiry in this case would be the demand of natural justice in accordance with the Taw laid down. The appellant is reinstated in service from 4th September. 1982, in order to clothe him a civil servant and thus if he is proceeded against, the provisions of law, rules as indicated above are to be observed strictly without any exception. The period of his absence, from 4th September, 1982 to the date of reinstatement will be treated as leave of the kind due. There will be no order as to costs. PLD 1964 SC 64 1980 SCM R 850