' Muhammad Arif, ex-Constable No, 536 of Jhang District has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded Superintendent of Police, Jhang, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Faisalabad and the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the order of Superintendent of Police, Jhang dated 18th April, 1982 and of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Faisalabad dated 20th September, 1983 be set aside and the appellant be reinstated with all the back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Constable and was on temporary duty at S. P.'s House. He was found committing sexual intercourse with one Mst. Jantan daughter of Mst. Rajan in one of the quarters of S. P.'s House on 15th April, 1982. He was witnessed by Muhammad Iqbal Constable No, 16, Sher Muhammad Mali, Constable Muhammad Ashraf No, 77 and Constable Muhammad Riaz No,
62. The statements of the said officials were recorded.
Muhammad Arif Constable was also provided an opportunity to explain his position who took the plea that he has been made a target of rivalry of his colleagues and was innocent in the matter.
His plea was considered by the competent authority but was not found satisfactory. He was discharged from service under P. R.
12.21 vide order dated 18th April, 1982 of Superintendent of Police, Jhang. The appellant made an appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Faisalabad which was rejected vide his order dated 20th September, 1983. The appellant made another representation to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore on 29th December, 1983 which is still undecided and after expiry of satutory period of 90 days the appellant has made this appeal to the Tribunal. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the parties i,e, Mr. Masood Mirza counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. G. Humayun, District At assisted with the representative of the Department on behalf of the respondents.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was serious charge of corruption and committing sexual act with Mst. Jantan daughter of Mst. Rajan but no enquiry was conducted against the appellant as envisaged under the law. No charge-sheet was framed and no opportunity to prove his innocence was given to him, thus, the appellant has been discharged summarily. The appellant's counsel has pointed out that the appellant has been made a target of rivalry of his colleagues who were inimical towards him because he was posted at the residence of Superintendent of Police, Jhang and the appellant has been falsely involved in the aforesaid case.
It has further been pointed out by the appellant's counsel that the story is unbelievable. How a constable can perform such 'a destardly act and that, too, in the residence of the Superintendent of Police in day time. It is completely false and fantastic. No evidence of the girl or her parents was at all recorded who would have been the first to come forth against the appellant, if the allegations were true. Non-recording of their evidence by Superintendent of Police or any other such officer he would have appointed proves the appellant's complete innocence. In nutshell it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant could not be discharged under rule 12.21 of the Police Rules. This rule meant that constable who is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer may be discharged by the Superintendent at any time within three years of enrolment. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that this was not a simple discharge but the appellant was involved in a serious charge and the impugned order of the Superintendent of Police shows that the discharge of the appellant was with stigma and not as a simple discharge as provided under rule 12.21. The appellant could not be discharged from service unless the required formalities under the law i,e, serving of charge-sheet, holding of departmental enquiry and issue of show-cause notice have been observed in the case of the appellant. The discharge of the appellant under rule 12.21 is against the law and the appellant has been punished without giving him an opportunity to defend himself by producing his witnesses and without proving his innocence in the matter. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore by a circular had informed all his subordinates that where there is allegation of corruption a regular enquiry should always be held. Thus, the orders of Inspector-General of Police have not been complied in this case.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has, further, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as PLD 1974 SC 393 and also case No, 229/1824 of 1982, decided on 12th December, 1982 by this Court in case of Muhammad Nawaz v. Superintendent of Police, Sargodha and D. I. G. Police Sargodha. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant's case is on all fours with the above judgments and keeping in view the decision in those cases the appeal of the appellant be accepted and the impugned orders be quashed being against the law.
7. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and has submitted that the Police rule 12.21 under which the appellant has been discharged is very much applicable case of the appellant. The appellant was found unlikely to an efficient police official, hence he has been discharged rightly by the Superintendent of Police, Jhang during the probation period for which he was competent to do so under the P. R.
12.21. Thus the impugned orders are lawful orders and no exception can be taken against the same.
8. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case very carefully. The appellant was discharged by the Superintendent of Police under Police rule 12.21 which reads as follows:- "12.21 Discharge of Inefficients.-A constable who is found unlikely to prove an efficient Police Officer may be discharged by the Superintendent at any time within three years of enrolment. There shall be no appeal against an order of discharge under this rule."
' It is clear from the above rule that the appellant has been discharged as he was found unlikely to prove an efficient police official. The impugned orders of Superintendent of Police, Jhang dated 18th April, .1982 and D. I. G. Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad dated 20th September, 1983 show that the appellant was found guilty of charge of misconduct as the appellant was found committing sexual intercourse with Mst. Jantan daughter of Mst. Rajan in one of the quarters of S. P.'s House on 15th April, 1982 and this showed that the appellant was a bad character person. However, I find that the requirements of law as the serving of charge-sheet to the appellant, holding of departmental enquiry and issue of show-cause notice had not been observed. This Tribunal has already held, as reported, Muhammad Zafarullah v. D. Y.-G., Multan that in such cases, meeting of requirements of law as to charge-sheet, holding of departmental enquiry and service of show-cause notice are must, while placing reliance on the follow- ing observations of Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as PLD 1974 SC 393 appearing at 401 :- "In my opinion, if the service of a probationer is terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory work that will not amount to dismissal or removal from service such termination will be in terms of the contract or the rules made by the Government but if the service of a probationer is terminated on the ground of misconduct that will amount to removal or dismissal. It will be a stigma in his favour."
9. In my opinion the ratio of the above decision clearly supports the contention of the appellant's counsel inasmuch as that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the objectionable misconduct of the appellant. I accordingly set aside the impugned orders and remand the C case to the competent authority to proceed afresh against the appellant in accordance with the law as mentioned above. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant ' so that the authority can proceed against the appellant. The fate of the period for which the appellant remained out of service will also be decided by the competent authority after proceeding afresh against the appellant.
' There are no orders as to costs. 1984 PLC (C S) 1370