' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-- Rana Ghulam Hussain, fomerly A.S.-I, now Head Constable has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala, D.I.-G. Of Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala and the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 22-3-1983, 23-6-1983, 14- 3-1984/ 7-4-1984, be set aside and the appellant be re-instated as A.S.-I. With full back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that a case F.I.R. No, 27, P.S. Saddar District Gujranwala, was registered on the complaint of one Abdullah under section 11/7/79 of Hudood Ordinance. Its investigation was entrusted to the appellant who recovered the abductee on 28-1-1983 and produced her before Duty Magistrate, on 29-1-1983, for her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. However, the learned Court did not record the statement and sent her to Darul Amman. By order, dated 2-2-1983, the appellant was placed under suspension in connection with the said case. A show-cause notice, dated 2-3-1983 was issued to the appellant for faulty investigation to which the appellant submitted reply on 21-3-1983. Another show-cause notice, dated 21-3-1983 was issued to the appellant in which it was alleged that the appellant had accepted illegal gratification of Rs,3,500 from one Abdullah on the pretext that appellant would recover his wife and two daughters. The appellant refuted the charge. However, the appellant was summarily proceeded under Rule 6(3) of the Police E & D Rules, 1975, and reduced in rank of Head Constable by respondent No,1 vide order, dated 26-3-1983. He filed departmental appeal, dated 10-4-1983, in which he refuted all the allegations but the said appeal stood rejected by order, dated 23-6-1983. The appellant then filed a revision petition, dated 6-8-1983 and submitted that Abdullah son of Bago who had levelled allegation of illegal gratification against him, was himself a man with long criminal history behind him and was facing trial in case F.I.R. No, 503/83 under section 379/44, P.P.C., P.S. Saddar, Gujranwala. It was also informed by the appellant through his revision petition to the authority that the said Abdullah was hauled up in case F.I.R. No, 194, dated 20-5-1981 under section 380, P.P.C., P.S. Kotwali. The said revision petition was rejected on 14-3-1983, communicated to the appellant by endorsement, dated 7-4-1984. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no regular enquiry was held to prove the charges against the appellant which was violation of settled law regarding allegation of corruption against a civil servant. He has further made a grievance that a preliminary enquiry was held by Mr. M. Abid Saeed, A.D.I.-G., Gujranwala, but in the said enquiry the appellant was not held guilty. With regard to the merits of the case it has been submitted that there was no evidence on record to support any of the allegation as there was no delay in the recovery and production of the abductees as alleged in the show-cause notice. It has been further pointed out that the proceedings against the appellant were initiated by Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad the then S.S.P. Who placed the appellant under suspension by order, dated 2-2-1983, and it was irony of fate that the same officer acted as Appellate Authority and rejected his departmental appeal by order, dated 21-6- 1983. According to the learned counsel for the appellant this was also in violation of the principle of natural justice as nobody could sit as judge of his own cause.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that there was no need to hold a regular enquiry in this case as the appellant himself had admitted his guilt by placing a sum of Rs,3,500 on Holy Quran which sum was picked up by the complainant Abdullah, therefore, by implication it was established that the appellant had conceded his own guilt. However, the learned District Attorney beside this argument could not controvert the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that when there was allegation of corruption against a civil servant, according to the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in PLD 1974 SC 393, a regular enquiry was a must.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and also summoned the record of this case concerning the picking up of money from Holy Quran, in order to see whether this offer was voluntary or not. The record of this case reveals that in fact there was no mention of picking up of money from Holy Quran as stated by the learned District Attorney but only the complainant's brother made on oath and the appellant was directed by A.D.I.-G. To place the money before him which he picked up. However, there is a statement of the appellant himself in which he has stated that he was forced to place the money on Holy Quran from where the complainant's brother collected the money. What we find in this case is that extraordinary methods not warranted by any law, have been adopted by A.D.I.-G. To elicit the truth which has resulted into confusion by contradictory stand in the record of A.D.I.-G. And the appellant himself. We have satisfied ourselves that during the course of preliminary inquiry no such evidence is on record that the appellant had accepted money except a nacked statement of the complainant and his brother which were not a subject-matter of cross-examination by the appellant as he was not associated at any stage of the enquiry. In these circumstances the statement of the complainant's brother is without any support of an independent evidence and would not be of any assistance to come to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of act of corruption.
8. The law with regard to the case in which corruption is main charge, has now been settled by the highest Court of the realm and the I.-G. Police by a circular had informed all his subordinates that where there is allegation of corruption a regular enquiry should always be held.
9. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to set aside the impugned orders as they are in violation of the instructions as well as contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. We therefore, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the appellant be re-instated in service as A.S.-l. w,e,f, 22-3-1983 and if the Department still wants to satisfy itself about the charge of corruption against the appellant a regular enquiry be held against him.
10. Resultantly the appeal succeeds. There will be no order as to costs