' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). -Muhammad Fazil, Head Constable No, 176, Police Lines, Gujrat, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Gujrat, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala and the Additional Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
' By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 30th November, 1982 of the Superintendent of Police, Gujrat, 7th February, 1983 and 5th April, 1983 of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala and order dated 29th January, 1984 of the Additional Inspector-General of Police, Punjab. Lahore be set aside and the respondents be directed to re-enter the name of the appellant in promotion list 'D' and he be reinstated as A. S.. I.
With all the back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined as Foot Constable in 1956 and was promoted as officiating A. S. I. On 12th November, 1980. While the appellant was posted as Moharrir A. S. I.
Police Station Saddar Gujrat, he was served a show-cause notice dated 2nd November, 1982 by the respondent No, 1 (detailed at Annexure `A'). The appellant submitted his reply of this show-cause notice which is at Annexure .The reply to the show-cause notice was considered by the competent authority i. e., the superintendent of Police, Gujrat and the appellant was also heard in person but the appellant was found responsible for physical beating of Javed Akhtar son of Fateh Ali resident of village Loran who went to Police Station Saddar, Gujrat to supply meals to one Muhammad Shafi who was present in the Police Station for investigation in case F. I. R. No, 357, dated 6th September, 1982 under section 452/34, P.P.C., Police Station Saddar and the appellant was awarded major punishment by reducing his pay from Rs, 362 to 340 p. m. For the period of one year vide the Superintendent of Police, Gujrat order, dated 30th November, 1982. Consequent upon the award of major punishment the name of the appellant was removed from the promotion List 'D vide order dated 7th February, 1983, by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala. The appellant made an appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala which was rejected vide order, dated 5th April, 1983. The appellant made a revision petition to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore which was rejected vide order, dated 29th January, 1984 by the Additional Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties i. e., Mr. Riaz Anwat, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A. G. Humayun, District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents on behalf of the respondents.
5. It has been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent NO. 1 erred in law by adopting show-cause notice procedure under rule 6 (3) of Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The charge against the appellant being a disputed question of fact, it was necessary to hold enquiry to prove the aforesaid allegation and the enquiry could not be legally dispensed with. In view of this illegality the entire proceedings against the appellant stands vitiated. The removal of the name of the appellant from promotion list 'D' by respondent No, 2 on 7th February, 1983 on the basis of major punishment awarded to the appellant by the respondent No, 1, is also illegal as per rule 13.9 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, the name of the appellant could not be removed from promotion list `D' on the basis of said punishment. Referring to the merit of the case it has been argued by the appellants' counsel that the allegation against the appellant is false. The real facts of the case were that three persons had come to the gate of the Police Station on 7th September, 1982 at about 8/9 p.m. And knocked the said gate. The Constable Nisar Ahmad No, 601 who was performing santry duty opened the door and the said three persons came in and asked to meet Muhammad Shafi who was locked in the lock-up in connection with the investigation of case F. I. R. No, 357, dated 6th September, 1982 under section 452/34, P.P.C. The constable on duty refused to allow them to meet the prisoner as it was not permissible under the rules to do so without the permission of the S. H. O. The said visitors talked to the duty constable in harsh language and insisted on meeting the prisoner. The appellant witnessed all this from the reporting room and came over to the gate and, told the visitors that the interview with the prisoner in the night is not permissible and they should come on the morning when they can meet the prisoner with the permission of the S. H.
0. This refusal infuriated the said visitors and while going back they threatened the appellant with dire consequences because according to them they were related to Police Officers. 2/3 days thereafter they made application against the appellant levelling allegation of having beaten Javed Akhtar one of the visitors, It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the .
Falsity of the allegation is proved from the fact that the complainant procured a false medical certificate. The said medical certificate does not _ state that any solid injury had been caused to the said complainant. The medical certificate only states that he complained of pain at various places. Such complaint cannot be verified by the Medical Officer whether it is genuine or false in the absence of any specific injury. In view of this such medical certificate could not have been given any importance to the allegation of any torture or physical beating on the part of the appellant. The appellant's counsel has forcefully argued that if the regular enquiry would have been conducted against the appellant, he would have been able to bring all the facts before the Enquiry Officer and would have been able to show that the appellant had never caused any physical beating as alleged and the medical certificate was bogus and concocted. The appellant's counsel has, further submitted that the appellant has unblemish service record. He had never misbehaved with any member of the public during his service so much so that the appellant was awarded a Class II Commendation Certificate by Ch. Muhammad Amin, Deputy Inspector-General of Police Gujranwala Range on 9th August, 1982 alongwith a cash award of Rs, 200 in recognition of his good behaviour and fair dealing with public (copy of Commendation Certificate at Annexure `J'). During the service the appellant had been awarded 28 Commendation Certificates Class II for his good service. It has been concluded by the learned counsel for the appellant, that keeping in view the above arguments the appellant has been arbitrarily punished without proving the allegation against the appellant and has prayed that the impugned order be quashed.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has rebutted the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that a preliminary enquiry was held against the appellant. On the basis of this enquiry, the misconduct of the appellant stood proved. The learned District Attorney produced the enquiry report and read out before the Tribunal and also referred to the medical certificate available on the record to show that the appellant was responsible for physical beating of Mr. Javid Akhtar. Hence, the appellant has been rightly punished and no exception can be taken against the impugned orders.
7. We have heard the parties and perused the record of this case. No doubt no regular enquiry was conducted as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant but a detailed preliminary enquiry was held into the affairs of this case. We have gone through the enquiry report and have also gone through the medical certificate available on record. These are important documents available with the respondents on the record. The learned counsel for the appellant has objected that no regular enquiry was held and the appellant has been prejudiced in the matter. Perusal of the preliminary enquiry report and medical certificate, reveals that this was sufficient material before the authority to take decision in the case of the appellant. Thus, we find that no injustice has been done with the appellant and his case has been decided by the authority on merits. Thorough examination of these documents prove that the appellant acted in a manner which was not expected from a Police Officer while dealing with the public. However, keeping in view the service record of the appellant and recommendation certificates on record we find that the appellant has been treated harshly and the punishment awarded to the appellant is not in consonance to his guilt.
8. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the punishment' so awarded to the appellant is varied/modified as under :-
(1) Censure.
(2) Stoppage of increment for one year without culmulative. Effect. As above modified punishment, according to the Rule 4 (i) and (iv) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 is a minor punishment, hence the impugned orders of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala, dated 7th February, 1983 wherein the name of the appellant was removed from the promotion list "D" consequent upon award of the major punishment to the appellant, shall automatically become redundant and is set aside. The result is that with the modified punishment the appellant will continue as Officiating A. S. I. As if he was never removed from promotion list `D' or reverted, The impugned orders, dated 30th November, 1982, 5th April, 1983 and 29th January, 1984 are modified to the above extent.
' There are no orders as to costs.