S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). --Ahsan Saleem, ex-Inspector Police No.1/72 has filed this appeal a/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore, and the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned order dated 1-10-1985, be set aside and the appellant be re-instated in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service as probationary A . S . I . On 3-9-1966, was promoted /confirmed as A . S . I . He was brought on 'E' list and was promoted as Sub- Inspector. Due to his consistently good record of service and efficient performance of his duties the appellant was brought on 'F' list on 27-10-1980, and was promoted and posted as Inspector Police on 6-4-1981. As it happened that the appellant was involved in criminal case vide Flit No.240 dated 29-9-1985, P.S. South Cantt, Lahore. He was challaned and trial was entrusted to Summary Military Court. Ex parte proceedings were ordered against him and was declared absconder and the Summary Military Court convicted the appellant in absentia and sentenced him to one year R.I.
And fine of Rs.5 lacs. When the proceedings were submitted to the Martial Law Administrator Punjab, for confirmation, he by his order dated 26-12-1985 quashed the proceedings in exercise of power under section 128 of Pakistan Army Act with the observation "I set aside the proceedings."
The appellant who claims that he was ill and after his recovery from illness, reported for duty to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore, vide application dated 20-1-1986, but as no action was taken on this application he made another application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, on 30-1-1986, i.e. 10 days later. However, he was informed by the Senior Superintendent of Police that he has been reverted from the rank of Inspector to that of Sub-Inspector by his order No.40/PN dated 16-2-1985, and later on dismissed from service by him by his order dated 2-12-1985. The appellant filed appeal before Respondent No.2 on 11-3-1986, but despite a lapse of 90 days his appeal/ representation has not been decided, he has come before this Tribunal. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the entire record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the reversion order in this case could not be sustained on the simple ground that it was not done in the exigency of service by the competent authority but on the strength of a case registered against him and his trial in absentia by the Summary Military Court which unfortunately resulted in his conviction. According to the learned counsel for the appellant once the said proceedings have been set aside by the Martial Law Administrator Punjab a/s 128 of the Pakistan Army Act, he was fully entitled to be reinstated in the same position, which he was holding before the passing of the impugned order of his reversion.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has further argued that he would have not disputed if the appellant had been reverted after holding enquiry into his conduct as it was not of a case of simple reversion but reduction in rank and the disciplinary proceedings should have been held under the relevant rules and he should have been afforded opportunity to defend himself. For this he has relied on the case of Ghias-ud-Din 1984 PLC 1234, Muzammal Hayat 1986 PLC 145, following the dictum of Supreme Court of Pakistan in case Dr. Safdar Mehmood reported as PLD 1983 SC 100.
6. It has been further submitted that the appellant was working as Inspector since 1981, and stood confirmed by operation of law because the appellant had already rendered more than 5 years service, therefore, he could not be treated as unconfirmed Inspector after more than 5 years. With regard to the observation of the Competent Authority that the appellant's reversion was due to inefficiency it has been submitted that the appellant has worked and performed very heavy duties as Inspector/SHO at Police Station like P.S. City Lahore, P.S. Shalimar, Lahore, P.S. Shahdara, Lahore, P.S. Ravi Road, Lahore, and Inspector, Special Police Staff City Division and as Inspector CIA, and was recipient for extraordinary and gallantry performance in the arrest of Sadaat Baluch, Hameed alias Kaloo Butt and he was recipient of C.C. Class I with reward of its.10,000 by the Inspector- General of Police in recognition of the above achievement. The appellant had been granted a C. C.
Class I with reward of Rs.1,500 in recognition of the leading role he had played in the Police encounter in which a notorious dacoit/proclaimed offender namely Mushtaq alias Mushtaqi had been killed in the month of May, 1980. Similarly his services were recognized in the case of Heera son of Nawab who was wanted in a number of assaults on Police and murder cases for the last 12 years. The appellant was responsible for the arrest of Mohammad Safdar son of Illahi Bakhsh who was wanted in two murder and six robbery cases of various Police Stations, Muhammad Shafi son of Muhammad Hussain a notorious bank robber who was wanted in cases of Bank robberies of Lahore and Sialkot districts and Muhammad Ejaz Baig son of Nazir Beg who was wanted in two cases of murder and 8 others cases of robberies of various Police Stations. In this manner it has been vehemently argued that the service record of the appellant is so brilliant that to recount the same it will need pages and pages to give his performance.
7. On the other hand the Department concerned has taken two legal objections without controverting the performance of the appellant, which he has given in detail throughout his appeal i.e.--
(i) The appeal is time-barred.
(ii) Reversion was a simplicitor reversion which does not fall within the category of punishment as per rule 4(2)(b) of the Punjab Police (END) Rules, 1975, thus the appeal was not maintainable before this Tribunal.
8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and we hardly find the plea of time-barred is not tenable because what we find is that immediately he was out of hospital, came forward in appeal before the learned Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, with regard to the exoneration from the charge by the Military Court and came before this Tribunal within the time limit. We also do not find on record that the learned Inspector-General of Police, has turned out his appeal as time-barred as the same is still pending with him.
9. With regard to the plea that the appellant's reversion was simplicitor reversion we hardly find any force in the plea of the respondent that a person who has been working for the last 5 years as Inspector Police with meritorious performance in the Department and not denied by the respondents in their parawise comments for obvious reasons that his reversion was not in the exigency of service but the fact that he has been involved in a criminal case, which was being proceeded against him by the Summary Military Court. To hold this view we fully place reliance on 1984 PLC 1234 Ghias-ud-Din v. IGP, Inspector Muzammal Hayat case 1986 PLC 145 and the case of Dr. Safdar Mehmood reported as PLD 1983 SC 100.
10. Without going into the merits of the case of the appellant's performance, which has been so vehemently argued before us and mention of the same is found in the earlier part of our judgment, we are of the considered opinion that the only course open to the competent authority for reverting the appellant would have been under the Police E & D Rules, by issuing him a show-cause notice or proceeding against him through a regular enquiry, if he was found guilty of misconduct or to wait for the result of the trial and ultimate end of the same. If we would have found that the appellant has been reverted for the exigency of service, then of course, we would have sustained the order of reversion as correct. The circumstances of the case lead no shadow of doubt that the appellant was reverted when it was found that he was involved in a criminal case of scandalous nature of impersonating himself as Military Secretary to the President, therefore, our reliance on the rulings so cited above would be fully applicable in this case.
11. In the light of the above, we proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order of reversion dated 1-10-1985 and reinstate the appellant to his original rank of Offg. Inspector with all back benefits. However, there will be no order as to costs.
A.E./50/Sr.S