' S. ABDUL JABBAR KAHN (CHAIRMAN).-- Muhammad Ashraf, Head Constable has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Rawalpindi Range, Rawalpindi and Inspector-General of Police, Islamabad, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned original and appellate orders be declared as without lawful authority and set aside the penalty of forfeiture of service and the present order of suspension and stoppage of increment for one year be also declared to be a nullity in law.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 27-7-1981, the Superintendent of Police, Islamabad, issued an order transferring the appellant from Police Station Secretariat to Police Line, Islamabad. Earlier the appellant had proceeded on casual leave for seven days w,e,f, 26-7-1981 in conjunction with his transfer to Police Lines. The casual leave had been sanctioned by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. On 27-8-1981, the Superintendent of Police, issued an order suspending the appellant for allegedly committing high handedness with one Dildar Khan. Simultaneously a show-cause notice dated 27-8-1981, was issued in which the appellant was charged with misconduct on the allegation that while posted at P.P. Rawal Dam he took one Dildar Khan alongwith his wife to P.P.Rawal Dam where he allegedly tortured the said person although he had committed no offence. In the said notice it was mentioned as to why the appellant should not be awarded major/minor penalty including dismissal from service. On 12-9-1981 the appellant submitted a detailed explanation to the said show-cause notice in which he stoutly denied the allegation made against him. The appellant was proceeded under rule 6(3) of the Police (E & D) Rules, without holding an inquiry and ultimately was imposed with a penalty of forfeiture of two years approved service permanently, and was re-instated w,e,f, 20-9-1981. The appellant filed appeal before the D.I.-G. Police Rawalpindi Range, but he did not receive any reply to the same.
However, he made revision petition under rule 12 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 of Police Department. The said revision remained unanswered and in the meantime the appellant approached the Federal Service Tribunal, who vide its order, dated 7-5-1984, informed him through its Registrar that he being a deputationist and a civil servant of Punjab Government, should approach this Tribunal. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the P.D.S.P. Rawalpindi and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has first of all assailed the validity of the show-cause notice served upon the appellant on the ground that the appellant being deputationist could not be punished by the competent authority S.P., Islamabad who was required under the law to forward his case to the lending Department i,e, I.-G. Police Punjab, therefore, in this manner, the imposition of penalty as well as issuing a show-cause notice by the S.P. Was illegal and without lawful authority. He has also made a grievance that the I.-G. Police, Islamabad was also incompetent to reject his appeal as the same should have been decided by the 1.-G. Police Punjab and not by the said authority.
6. With regard to the merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the charge was misconceived as the appellant was already on casual leave, duly sanctioned by the authority and he had no connection with the alleged incidence which has been attributed to him due to malice.
7. On the other hand learned District Attorney as well as P.D.S.P. Rawalpindi have stoutly contested the claim of the appellant with regard to the procedure adopted against him by the S.P., Islamabad as well as I.-G.P. Islamabad. According to the learned District Attorney the appellant was not at all a deputationist while serving in Islamabad on 1-7-1980 as he was transferred from district Rawalpindi to district Islamabad which was a part of the Province of Punjab. It was after 1-1-1981 that Islamabad was delinked from the Province of Punjab and Islamabad Capital Territory came into existence as a separate unit under the administrative control of Federal Government by virtue of Presidential Order No,17 of 1980, which was followed by a notification issued by the President of Pakistan wherein all persons including Police Officers already serving in Islamabad were ordered to continue to serve in Islamabad till further orders. According to the learned District Attorney the appellant was proceeded under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules, 1975, duly adopted for its application to Islamabad Police. It was further submitted that a complete probe into the matter was made by the A.S.P/National Assembly which confirmed that the appellant had manhandled Dildar Khan which was an act of misconduct by itself. It has been further pointed out that the I.-G. - Police, Islamabad upheld the order of S.P., Islamabad after giving the appellant personal hearing. Learned District Attorney has further submitted that the appellant had filed time-barred appeal as the appeal was dismissed on 15-10-1983, by I.-G. Police, Islamabad whereas he has filed this appeal before this Tribunal on 12-6-1984.
8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and first of all advert to the crucial point raised in this case i,e, illegality of imposition of minor penalty by the borrowing authority as well as issuing of show-cause notice in that connection. The precise legal objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that while issuing the show-cause notice the S.P., Islamabad ought to have only mentioned the imposition of minor penalty and the word 'major' so included in the same would vitiate the show-cause notice as according to the rule 11 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, dealing with the case of deputationist, prescribes that the borrowing authority shall have only the power of suspending of deputationist and initiating disciplinary proceedings against him but this is subject to the proviso that the borrowing authority shall forthwith inform the lending authority of the circumstances leading to the order of his suspension or the commencement of the proceedings, as the case may be. Similarly he has relied on rule 11(3) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, which requires that if the borrowing authority was of the opinion that any major punishment should be imposed on him, it shall transmit the record of the proceedings to the lending authority, who shall take further action under the rules. We have carefully perused the language of rule 11 as well as rule 11(3) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975 and find the substance of these two rules would be that in case of deputationist as the appellant was in this case, the borrowing authority could suspend him as well as initiate proceedings against him and could only impose minor penalty. In case the borrowing authority was of the opinion that the appellant deserves major penalty for his misconduct, he would send the proceedings of the entire case to the lending authority for imposition of said penalty. In the present case what we find is that the appellant was served with a show-cause notice on 27-8-1981, in which he was called upon to show cause within 7 days of the notice, as to why he should not be dealt with under the Punjab Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules by way of general proceedings in which departmental enquiry was necessary and awarded major/minor penalty provided in the rules including dismissal from service. After receiving reply to the same the said S.P. Found him guilty of the charge, therefore, he called him in the orderly room, where he could not give plausible reply during the course of personal hearing and thus awarded penalty of forfeiture of his two years' approved service. He re-instated the appellant w,e,f, 10-9-1981 and the period of suspension was treated as such. To our considered opinion the S.P. Was only bound to forward the case to the lending authority with its entire proceedings so taken against the appellant, if he was of the opinion that the misconduct which has been so proved against him deserved imposition of major penalty.
We are not impressed with the arguments of learned counsel for The appellant that mere mentioning of the word major with the word minor in the show-cause notice, would for all purposes exclude his jurisdiction in imposing minor penalty which he himself could impose under the rules.
We are in accord with the learned District Attorney as well as learned P.D.S.P. Appearing on behalf of respondent, when it was submitted by them that it is only after the explanation received from the appellant that the competent authority i,e, S.P. Had to formulate his opinion about his decision either to act himself authority by imposing upon the appellant minor penalty which he could do and mere mentioning of the word major in the show-cause notice would not vitiate proceedings taken by him in this regard. At the most, according to the learned District Attorney it would be a technical mistake, which would not be fatal to the proceedings and was an act curable otherwise.
According to him this minor omission in the procedure has not prejudiced the rights of the appellant in any manner.
9. We have also taken into consideration the point of limitation raised by the learned District Attorney against the appellant and find that when the appellant fully knew that he was a deputationist from the Province of Punjab he had no business to institute an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was also a time-barred one i,e, lapsed of more than 8 months. The appellant should have straightway come to this Tribunal if he had firm belief in his status and should not have wasted so much time to create the impact of law of limitation against him.
10. With regard to the merits of the case we do not find that the appellant has been dealt with in any manner which was not envisaged under the rules. The fact being that the appellant was proceeded under the Police general proceedings by application of rule 6(3) of the Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, which the S.P., Islamabad was competent to do so. Although the appellant was on casual leave yet he had no business to stop Dildar Khan and his wife who were travelling and to take them to Police Station and to subject them to unnecessary harassement/torture and inconvenience., The appellant has been unable to deny that he had not done so but wants to take shelter behind the casual leave which he was so enjoying. His offence becomes all the more heinous particularly when being on casual leave as claimed by him himself, he had no business to act in the manner in which he so acted.
11. In the light of the above detailed discussion and analysis of the entire case, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.