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 Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 2-12-1985, be set aside and appellant be re-instated in service with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who was promoted and posted as Inspector Police on 6-4-1981, and was working as such when he was involved in a criminal case vide FIR No.240 dated 29-9-1985, P.S. South Cantt., Lahore. The appellant was challaned and the trial was entrusted to Summary Military Court. The appellant was declared as proclaimed offender although he was admitted to Police Hospital, Qurban Line, Lahore, from 29-9-1985 to 28-10-1985, and further confined to bed at his house on the direction of the Medical Officer from 29-10-1985 to 21-1-1986.
Besides this ailment and his confinement to the hospital the Summary Military Court convicted the appellant in absentia and sentenced him to one year R.I. And fine of Rs.5 lacs. However, the proceedings were quashed by the Martial Law Administrator Punjab by his order dated 24-12-1985, in exercise of power under section 128 of Pakistan Army Act with the following observation:- "I set aside the proceedings."
The appellant reported for duty to Respondent No.1 on 20-1-1986, vide application dated 20-1-1986, Annexure/C. As no action was taken on the same, he submitted further application dated 30-1- 1986, Annexure/D, on record. He was informed by Respondent No.1 vide Urdu order dated 16-2-1986, that he has been dismissed from service vide Order No.1084 dated 2-12-1985. The appellant preferred appeal before Respondent No.2 on 11-3-1986, but despite a lapse of 90 days the appeal has not been decided, he has come before this Tribunal for the redress of his grievance.
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 Respondent No.1 had committed gross error of law by proceeding ex parte against the appellant. The appellant to the knowledge of the entire department, was admitted to the Police Hospital, Qurban Lines, Lahore from 29-9-1985 to 28- 10-1985. According to the office record he was discharged on 28-10-1985, but the Medical Officer Incharge of the Hospital had directed the appellant to take complete rest for three months from 29-10-1985 to 28-1-1986, Thus from 29-10-1985 to 28-1-1986, he was confined to bed at his mother's house at Noor Mohallah Azeem Street, Ichhra, Lahore. However, no show-cause notice was pasted at the house of his father at House No.5, Street No.5 Bagh Munshi Ladha, Kacha Ravi Road, Lahore. In this manner, it has been argued that the order has been passed in violation of Rules as well as principle of natural justice and was condemned unheard. It has been argued that the impugned order was bad in law. It was settled law that mere involvement of a civil servant in a criminal case in itself did not render him liable to departmental action. For this he has placed reliance on PLD 1963 SC 185, which was also followed by this Tribunal in, case reported as 1981 PLC (C.S.) 385 and 1984 PLC (C.S.) 1094. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that in view of the said observation of the ruling by the Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as by the Tribunal the Authority should have not acted in a haste under the Police E & D Rules and dismiss the appellant from service. It was further argued that it was a settled law that when the department decides to proceed against the Police Office. Under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, side by side with, the criminal proceedings on the same charges then it was obligatory on the part of the Authority to hold an independent inquiry and thereafter to determine his guilt or innocence on the basis of such inquiry According to him any material collected during the investigation of the said criminal case was irrelevant and could not be made the basis of penalty. For this he has relied on cases decided by this Tribunal reported in 1982 PLC (C.S.) 172; 1982 PLC (C.S.) 102 and 1984 PLC (C.S.) 1094.
Learned counsel for the appellant has recounted the brilliant record of service of the appellant in apprehending notorious criminals Saadat Baluch, Kalu Butt, who were wanted in a number cases of robbery, dacoity, attempt of murder and other heinous offences all over Punjab. He also arrested Rashid Khan a ring leader of gang of dacoits involved in 30 dacoity cases including robbery for taking away Rs.1,37,000 from the Cashier of Lahore Municipal Corporation, arrested Wadood alias Wadoodi Khan Pathan a notorious dacoit who was wanted in a large number of dacoity cases in Punjab, N.-W.F.P., Karachi and arrested Khurshid alias Khurshida who was involved in several murder cases committed in Lahore and Gujranwala. According to the learned counsel for the.
Appellant, the appellant has been recipient of various cash awards and certificates from time to time.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the Department so submitted in this case and has submitted that the appeal was time-barred and he dismissed on this score alone. He has opposed the claim of the appellant that he was admitted the Police Hospital, Qurban Lines. According to him, no intimation was sent of his being admitted in the hospital or for rest. Similarly it has been submitted that even the said Medical Officer did not report to the higher authority. Learned District Attorney has further argued that the appellant is a professional litigant, he had filed a civil suit against D.I.-G. And Home Secretary in the Civil Court in the year 1979. He got filed criminal complaint against Senior Police Officers and S.S.P. Lahore in different Courts. However, the claim of the appellant for meritorious performance has not been denied nor anything has been said with regard to the legal aspect of the case so highlighted above and the reliance of learned counsel for the appellant on different rulings of this Tribunal as well as of Supreme Court of Pakistan.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and without going into the appellant's meritorious performance as claimed by him and not denied by the respondents in this case, we will only deal with the legal aspect of the case in order to determine whether the impugned order can be sustained in the eyes of law or not.
8. It is not a case of its first kind in which we find that the Departmental Authority without holding any enquiry at its own in the conduct of Police Officer, straightaway takes disciplinary action against him when it comes to its notice that such officer has been involved in a criminal or any scandulous case, so registered against him on account of some moral turpitude. This Tribunal as well as their lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan has invariably held that there are two courses open for the competent authority either to proceed against a civil servant when it is found that he is involved in a criminal case or to await the result of said case. The competent authority is fully within its powers to proceed independently for such criminal case against him to find out whether the appellant was guilty of such misconduct or not. Similarly the said authority can wait for the result of the proceeding so taken up against such civil servant in order to save its own time and then proceed according to the said result either in his favour or against. This is in nutshell the view taken by their lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as by this Tribunal so cited in the earlier part of our judgment. It is also a settled law that in cases where a person has been removed from service simply on the strength of involvement in a criminal case and if ultimately he is acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction he would be entitled to go back in service as the cause which was responsible for his removal from service, stood) removed. The latest pronouncement of their lordship of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in such like matter is case of Sardar Muhammad Khan reported as 1985 SCMR 1062.
9. In the present case the simple facts are that the appellant was involved in a criminal case and was convicted for one year R.I. And Rs.5.00 lacs in absentia by the Summary Military Court the case was referred not on his representation but in the normal procedure for confirmation of the said sentence, the Martial Law Administrator was pleased to set aside the proceedings. The wording "I set aside the proceedings" would positively mean, as if no proceedings had been taken against the appellant and he was held not guilty of any offence. This being so there was, hardly any justification for the respondents to deny him his right as laid down in Sardar Muhammad Khan case ruling of their lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, indicated above. However, the respondents are neither debarred earlier nor even now to proceed against him under the Police E & D Rules, if they are of the opinion that the appellant was guilty of malversation or any misconduct under the Police E & D Rules.
10. With these observations we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and we set aside the same as being without any justification as well as without lawful authority. The appellant stands restored in service from the date he was so dismissed, with all back benefits. There will be no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties.
A.E./54/Sr.S.