' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-- Peer Bakhsh ex-Constable has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab. Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal, D.I.-G. Of Police, Multan Range, Multan and I.-G. Police Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 6-1-1979, 23-6-1981 and 24-8-1981 be set aside and he be re-instated in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service in the year 1976 and was posted as guard in the National Bank of Pakistan, Sahiwal in 1978. His services were requisitioned on the night between the 7th and 8th December, 1978 at the Urs of Baba Farid-ud-Din Ganjshakar, Pakpattan, when thousands of persons were passing through Bahishti Darwaza. One person requested the appellant that he should keep his second hand tape-recorder for safe custody as the same was likely to be damaged in the rush of people who were passing through the said Bahishti Darwaza.
The appellant went away alongwith the said article to Sahiwal, as nobody contacted him on that night for the recovery of the same. On the next day when Ghulam Rasool approached him that he should return his tape-recorder the appellant told him that as he was not known to him personally, therefore, it would be better that he should arrange some identity for the restoration of said article.
This gave cause of annoyance to the said Ghulam Rasool who lodged an F.I.R. Against the appellant under section 411, P.P.C. On the same day with the P.S. 'A' Division, Sahiwal. The appellant was challaned and when his case was still sub judice before the Magistrate, the S.P. Sahiwal issued him a show-cause notice on the strength of the said F.I.R. And discharged him from service under rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 vide order, dated .6-10-1979. All this took place within a period of month. The appellant filed his appeal before the D.I.-G. Police, Multan Range, Multan as well as Police Punjab, Lahore but did not succeed. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have also perused the record carefully with their assistance.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that once the appellant has been honourably acquitted by a judicial Court of the country it was an act of injustice for the higher authorities to ignore the same and maintain the sentence so awarded to him by S.P. Sahiwal. Tie has also submitted that even S.P. Sahiwal was not competent to take action against him when the matter was still sub judice. For this he has relied upon the earlier ruling of this Tribunal as well as the Supreme Court of Pakistan by submitting that an action can only be taken against the civil servant by a regular enquiry when it feels that judicial case would take long to conclude.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has adopted the parawise comments so submitted by the Department and has submitted that S.P. Was within his rights to discharge the appellant under rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules. He has prayed that the dismissal order be maintained.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have perused the judgment of A.C./S.D.M., Sahiwal, doted 27-4-1981 and find that the learned Magistrate has clearly held that no charge has been made out against the appellant. According to the judicial record the complainant who appeared before the said Magistrate (trial Court) according to his statement it was revealed that the appellant was entrusted the said article at the time of huge rush, with free will of the owner and later on he got it back. In view of this categorical decision we have examined the act of the complainant and find that he got registered the case on the same date when the appellant refused to hand over the second hand tape-recorder on the plea that he should provide him identity for establishing his claim over it. Keeping in view the background of the case that there was huge crowd at the Urs ceremony during the night therefore, it was proper for the appellant to ask the complainant to satisfy him whether he was the same man who had entrusted the said property to his care or not. Despite the background of this incident the fact remains that the case of the appellant was sub judice at the instance of the complainant and the S.P. Should have either waited for the result of the said case or at least should have instituted a regular enquiry to satisfy himself that the appellant was really guilty or possessed some bad intention to retain the property with himself. This is a settled law with which there can be no dispute. In these circumstances it would be very difficult for us to maintain the impugned orders of S.P., Sahiwal, as well as D.I.-G., Multan Range, Multan and I.-G., Police who have not followed the law so settled down by this Tribunal as well as the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
8. The result is we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order and direct the appellant be re-instated in service with all back benefits.
' However, there will be no order as to costs.