' S. ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-- The appellant has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded Superintendent of Police, Bahawalnagar, 0.1.-G., Police, Bahawalpur Range, Bahawalpur and I.G. Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order, dated 4-5-1982, 17-9- 1982/14-10-1982 be set aside and he be re-instated in service w,e,f, 17-4-1982 with full benefits of pay and seniority etc.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while posted at Police Station, Faqirwali as S.H.O.
Was served with a show-cause notice by respondent No,1 under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 on 19-1-1982 (Annexure-A). The appellant was alleged to have extorted an illegal gratification amounting to Rs, 10,000 from one Haq Nawaz and Mukhtar Ahmad in two instalments of Rs,5,000 each for showing them favour in case F.I.R. 105, dated 2-8-1981 under section 302/34, P.P.C., P.S. Faqirwali. A reply to the show-cause notice was submitted by the appellant. This reply was considered by respondent No,1. The appellant was also heard in person on 17-4-1982 but he was found guilty of misconduct. He was retired compulsorily w,e,f, 17-4-1982 vide order, dated 4-5- 1982 passed by respondent No,l. The period for which the appellant remained under suspension was treated as such. The appellant submitted an appeal to respondent No,2 which was rejected vide his order, dated 17-9-1982, received by the appellant on 14-10-1982. The appellant submitted a revision petition on 22-10-1982 to respondent No,3 which has not so far been decided although the period of 90 days has since expired. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the allegation against the appellant was clearly of extorting illegal gratification. It was must for the competent authority to conduct a regular enquiry as already decided in so many cases by this Tribunal relying upon the judgments of Supreme Court of Pakistan. No regular enquiry was held in the present case. The appellant was not afforded opportunities to produce the witnesses in his defence and hence he has been prejudiced in the matter. The appellant has been punished without proving the charge against him. It has been further submitted by the appellant's counsel that keeping in view the earlier judgments of Supreme Court of Pakistan and this Tribunal there is every justification for setting aside the impugned orders as the law has been well-settled that in a charge of corruption, a regular enquiry is must against the accused official.
5. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that clear cut proof of extorting illegal gratification by the appellant was available on record. Hence issuing of a show-cause notice under rule 6(3) of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 is in order and the proceedings conducted by the competent authority under the said rule are lawful.
6. We have given our anxious thought to the legal objection so raised by the appellant's counsel and also carefully scrutinized the show-cause notice and imugned order of the competent authority. This Tribunal has already held in so many cases, relying upon the judgments of Supreme Court of Pakistan, Mubarik Ahmad Malik and 4 others v. Federation of Pakistan 1980 PLC (C.S.) 418, Dost Muhammad v. D.C. Multan, 1980 PLC (C.S.) 611 M. Anwar v. Board of Revenue and others 1980 PLC (C.S.) 562 and M. Saiddique Javaid Chaudhry v. Government of West Pakistan, PLD 1974 SC 393 that in cases involving charges of corruption it is incumbent upon the competent authority to hold a regular enquiry. Since the provision of Rules has not been completed in this case, hence the impugned orders cannot be sustained. This fact cannot also be ignored that Superintendent of Police, Bahawalnagar the competent authority in his impugned order, dated 4-5-1982 has himself mentioned that the accused S.1. In his written defence had contended that the allegations had been levelled against him at the instigation and provocation of Rao Group, who had nursed a grudge against him, because during election days he (S.i.) had declined to extend them help. The appellant produced an affidavit written by a witness Ghulam Qadir, in favour of the accused S.I.
Keeping such facts in view it was all the more necessary that a regular enquiry should have been held and the appellant should have been provided opportunity to produce the witnesses to defend himself.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal is accepted. The impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the competent authority to proceed against the appellant in accordance with the law as indicated above. It is, further directed that the appellant be re-instated in service to bestow upon him the status of a civil servant to enable the authority to proceed against him. The fate of the period for which the appellant remained under suspension and out of service shall also be decided by the competent authority after conducting proceedings against the appellant in accordance with the law.
' There will be no order as to costs.