' A.O. RAZIUR RAHMAN (MEMBER).-- By an order, dated 30-12-1982, issued by the Superintendent, Pakistan Railways Police, Sukkur, the Appellant, then posted at Railways Police Station, Jacobabad, was dismissed from service for grave misconduct. The appellant preferred a departmental appeal against this order to the D.I.-G. Police, Pakistan Railways Police, Lahore on 19-1-1983. This appeal was rejected by an order, dated 27-4-1983. Thereupon, he preferred a revision application before the I.-G., Pakistan Railways Police, Lahore, which was also rejected by an order, dated 17-5-1983.
Against this order the Appellant came before the Tribunal, section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, by an appeal, dated 18-6-1983.
2. The appeal having been admitted for hearing on 13-11-1983, was finally heard on 3-5-1984 and is being disposed of by this order.
3. The allegation, on the basis of which the original impugned order was passed, was that 21-6- 1982. Appellant, alongwith another Police Constable, Rasool Bux of Railway Police Station, Jacobabad, while on train patrol duty on Chiltan Express (21-Up), from Jacobabad to Kashmore, removed a number of articles belonging to three passengers travelling from Quetta to Multan and unloaded these articles at Kashmore, with ulterior motives. When the owners discovered, at Dera Ghazi Khan that the articles had been unloaded at Kashmore, they learnt from another constable, who was performing his duty at Dera Ghazi Khan, that the appellant and his accomplice, Rasool Bux, had removed the articles from the train and taken them back to Jacobabad. When the owner went to Jacobabad and contacted the appellant and Rasool Bux, they were informed that the articles had been seized and F.I.R. Lodged, but they refused to supply a copy of the F.I.R. At the same time, the Writer Head Constable of the Jacobabad Railway Police Station, Muhammad lqbal, asked for bribe of Rs,500. After this when the owners of the articles went back to Jacobabad on 28-6-1982, with the bribe money demanded by Muhammad lqbal, they were informed that the Appellant had gone to Rohri and the seized articles would be given back the next day after the return of the appellant. Meanwhile Rasool Bux and Muhammad Iqbal arranged with the Ticket Collector to get them find for ticktless travelling and realised Rs, 71 from each of them; but did not give back the seized articles. The complainants reported these facts to the Superintendent of Police, who directed the Station House Officer, Pakistan Railways Police, Rohri, to investigate the matter. The said Officer, after investigation, reported that the luggage of the complainants had been picked up by the two Police Constables, with mala fide intention, during search of the train and that later on, when they learnt that the matter had been reported to the S.P., they deposited the articles in the Parcel Office at Jacobabad and that they also got the complainants charged for ticketless travelling to harass them. According to the Investigating Officer, the articles in question were got delivered to the complainants, through his intervention, and departmental action was recommended against the appellant and his accomplice.
4. On the basis of the report of the Investigating Officer, the appellant and his accomplice were charge-sheeted on 18-8-1982 and departmental enquiry ordered on 5-9-1982. On completion of the departmental enquiry, a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, on 13-12-1982. The appellant and his accomplice were held guilty of having illegally seized the property of the complainants and one of them, constable Rasool Bux, of having illegally got the complainants charged for ticketless travelling, with the ulterior motive of fabricating a false defence. On the basis of this enquiry report, a show-cause notice was served on the appellant on 14-12-1982, giving him seven days' time for reply. The reply was submitted by the appellant on 2-12-1982, whereafter, by the impugned order, the appellant and his accomplice, Rasool Bux, were dismissed from service with immediate effect.
5. The main grounds on which the appeal has been preferred are that no misconduct on the part of the appellant had been proved during the enquiry proceeding; that. The departmental enquiry was not free, fair, impartial and independent; that the appellant was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, who were examined by the Enquiry Officer, at Multan, in the absence of the appellant; that the Enquiry Officer had acted mala fidely in finding him guilty, because he had developed personal grudge against him, on the appellants refusal to carry out his domestic chores on a number of occasions; and that the truth of the matter was that the appellant and Rasool Bux had been informed that some unclaimed property was lying in a second class compartment, when the train reached Jacobabad, and they unloaded these articles at Jacobabad and deposited them in the Parcel Office, but they never demanded any bribe, nor got the complainants wrongly charged for ticketless travelling.
6. We have heard the parties at great length and perused the relevant documents and have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in the plea of the appellant that the allegations levelled against him were false and vexatious. There is nothing on record, and no evidence was produced before us during the hearing, to establish that a false and concocted case had been fabricated against him. The written complaint made to the S.P. By the owners of the articles in question, the investigation report of the S.H.O., R.P.S., Rohri and the report of the Enquiry Officer who conducted the departmental proceedings, are clear and consistent and the appellant has been unable to refute the facts brought out in these documents. At the same time, he has failed to establish his own story that the seizure of the articles was made bona fidely and the articles deposited in the Parcel Office. In this connection, it is worth noting that there is no merit in the plea that the appellant had seized the property on having received information of unclaimed property lying in one of the railway compartments. The Jacobabad Railway Station was not a terminal station and there could be no question of any property being found in one of the compartment as unclaimed property. Therefore, the very action of the appellant in treating the property as lost and unclaimed was mala fide. But, what was worse is that instead of seizing the property, under section 25 of Police Act, 1861, for disposal under section 26, to be released by order of the Court, he deposited the articles in the Parcel Office. He also did not make any report, at the Police Station. To the effect that he had deposited the articles at the Parcel Office. However, during the hearing, the appellant drew our attention to a document purporting to be the copy of his train diary for 21-6-1982 to 26-6-1982, in which he had made mention of the seizure of the articles in question and of their deposition in the Parcel Office at Jacobabad. We do not attach any importance to this document, for the reason that there is no mention of this in the reply to the charge-sheet, nor in the statement made by him during the departmental proceedings nor even in the appellant's reply to the final show-cause notice. This document is, therefore, clearly a fabrication and a result of an afterthought. From the entry in the Lost Property Register also, it was found that the entry relating to these articles had not been made on 21-6-1982, but some time after 24-6-1982, which was the last date containing any entry in the Register, prior to the entry in question. It is, therefore, obvious that the entry could not have been made prior to 25-6-1982. According to all indications, the property in question was deposited in the Parcel Office on 2-7-1982, when the Investigating Officer, the S.H.O. R.P.S., Rohri forced the appellant and the other constable to return the articles to the owners. In fact, the Investigating Officer's report clearly shows that the appellant and his accomplice did not show any keenness to return the seized articles to their owners and it understandable, as concluded by the Enquiry Officer, that the property was actually deposited on 2-7-1984, after pressure put by the Investigating Officer, and then returned to the owners through the Parcel Office.
7. As regards the contention that, during the departmental enquiry, the appellant was not afforded any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, who were examined by the Enquiry Officer at Multan, in the absence of the appellant, it is seen from the record that the appellant deliberately absented himself from the proceedings at Multan, in spite of previous notice and that he did not raise any objection to the ex parte hearing of witnesses when he attended the subsequent hearings.
8. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the appellant was suspended and proceeded against in a regular manner that the departmental enquiry was held in accordance with the rules; that the offence for misconduct, as contained in the charge-sheet and statement of allegations against him, had been fully established; and that, therefore, the punishment awarded to the appellant was fully justified.
9. There being no merit whatsoever in appeal, it is dismissed with cost of Rs, 100.