The appellant Gulzar Ahmad has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 against the order, dated 14-6-1980 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad (respondent No.1) (copy at Annexure 'A' of the appeal, vide which the appellant was dismissed from the service and the order, dated 12-9-1981 (copy at Annexure 'B' of the appeal) of the D.I.-G. Police, vide which the departmental appeal was rejected and the order, dated 5-9-1985 (copy at Annexure 'D' of the appeal), vide which the revision petition was rejected by the Additional Inspector-General Police.
2. Brief facts of the case are:- On the night intervening 2/3-4-1980 Constable Muhammad Idris No.31 and Constable Farzand Ali No. 3277 were on picket duty At Octroi Post No. 10, Ghulam Muhammad Abad, Faisalabad. Their Duty started from 11-30 p.m. (2-4-1980 to 4-00 a.m., 3-4-1980) prior to that Gulzar Ahmad appellant and Muhammad Saeed No. 3175 were on this duty from 6-00 p.m. To 11-30 p.m. After finishing their duty Constable Muhammad Saeed No. 3175 left the Octroi Post while the appellant slept inside the Octroi Post. Constable Farzand Ali No. 3277 who was to remain alert on the picket duty also went inside the Octroi Post and slept at a bench leaving Constable Muhammad Idris outside the Octroi Post.
Constable Muhammad Idris instead of holding the service rifle his hand and standing alert, placed the rifle along the chair which he was occupying. In the meantime 4 robbers came there and snatched the service rifle from Constable Muhammad ldris. By the time Constable Farzand Ali and the appellant also were up and saw the criminals taking away the rifle. All the constables including the appellant did not have the courage to get back the rifle or to pursue the robbers and exhibited extreme cowardice. On the above charge the appellant was issued with a show-cause notice to which he submitted his written explanation, which was considered and found unsatisfactory by the then Superintendent of Police Faisalabad and holding him guilty of extreme cowardice and dereliction of duty, dismissed him from service w.e.f. 25-5-1980. The appellant filed an appeal to Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha which was rejected, vide his Order No.25593-94/E, dated 12-9-1981. He filed revision petition to the Inspector-General of Police. Punjab, Lahore after a period of about 3-- years which was rejected by the Additional Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, vide his Order No. 9104-6/E, dated 5-9-1985. Hence this appeal".
3. At the time of the arguments the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was no doubt present at the spot at the time of incident of the robbery but the appellant had already served his duty. The learned counsel for the appellant closed his arguments while stating that the punishment of the dismissal from the service was harsh because he had already served his duty and he should not have been punished equal to the constables who were assigned duties on the replacement of the appellant.
4. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that as observed in the impugned order of Additional Inspector-General of Police, the appellant had already adverse record of five punishments without a single good entry in his 31 years service. The learned counsel for the appellant concluded the arguments while stating that the appeal is time-barred because the appellant filed revision petition, dated 18-3-1985 after rejection of his departmental appeal dated 12-9-1981.
5. I have carefully considered the points so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned D.D.A. And also consulted the relevant record including the written objections. This Tribunal already dismissed the appeal of Messrs Muhammad Idris and Farzand Ali, Constables.
Undisputedly the appellant was present at the spot and he had also to resist the incident of robbery and also to chase robbers which he did not. The main point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the punishment is harsh and taking into consideration the adverse record of five punishments inflicted on the appellant in short service of 31 years could not be treated as harsh punishment. As regards the written objections as well as arguments of the learned D.D.A. Regarding filing time-barred appeal, this is also correct because the departmental appeal of the appellant was rejected by the D.I.-G., Police on 12-9-1981, and his revision petition to the Inspector-General of Police (copy at Annexure 'C' of the appeal) was filed on 18-3-1985 as indicated in the revision petition. The learned counsel for the b appellant tried to show that the A.I.- G. While dismissing the revision petition of the appellant did not take notice of the time-barred appeal but this does prevent the respondents to point out this objection in their written objections and at the same time it does not debar the learned D.D.A. To raise this objection. It is enough that neither there is any justification or this long gap for not filing the revision petition has been explained if the appellant was condoned by the Additional I.-G. Likewise Punjab Service Tribunal can also take notice of this.
Hence the appeal is dismissed on merits as well as being time-barred.
No order for the cost: M.Y.H Appeal dismissed