ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).--Hamad Mahmood, Sub---Inspector Police, No.146/G.I., District Police Line, Sialkot has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gujranwala and the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the appeal be accepted and impugned order dated 5-3-1985 be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was awarded a 'Censure' vide order dated 5-3-1985 of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala by way of putting or, a plastic Badge on his left shoulder, which was not according to the muster pattern approved by the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab. Lahore. The appellant made an appeal to the Inspector- General of Police, Punjab, Lahore dated 3-4-1985. After awaiting statutory period of 90 days, the appellant has made this appeal within next 3C days to this Tribunal. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties i.e. Mr. Riaz Anwar, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney on behalf of the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been punished by the respondent No.1 on a mistaker assumption that the appellant was wearing improper uniform for the reasons that he was putting on a plastic badge on his left shoulder which was not according to muster pattern approved by the Inspector--General of Police, Punjab, Lahore. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the wearing of plastic badge by the upper subordinates had been prescribed by the Inspector---General of Police, Punjab, Lahore vide circular No. 13511-60/C-1. Dated 11-10-1980 appended at Annexure 'C'. Thus the appellant was wearing proper uniform according to the muster approved by the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore. The appellant has been punished arbitrarily on some misunderstanding by the respondent No.1. It has been prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant that 'Censure' so awarded to the appellant is factually incorrect and be quashed.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has relied on the parawise comments submitted by the respondents and has submitted that the appellant was awarded a minor penalty of censure in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975. The punishment was accorded correctly as the appellant was found wearing improper uniform when he appeared before the Deputy Inspector-- General of Police Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala in connection with his representation against the order of forfeiture of his two years' approved service. It has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that the order of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police.
Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala is a valid, lawful order and no exception can be taken against the same.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also gone through the parawise comments and a note on the factual position on the appeal of the appellant submitted by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gujranwala Range, Gujranwala which is reproduced as follows :- "During personal hearing of SI Hamid Mehmood No. 146/GI SHO P.S. Vanike Terrar on 4-3-1985, in connection with his representation relating to another departmental matter, he was observed putting on a badge on his left shoulder which was not according to the-prescribed pattern approved for lower and upper subordinates by the I.-G . P. , Punjab but in fact the badge which the appellant was putting on was meant for the G Os. However, either while giving dictation of the order impugned or due to typing error the word 'Plastic Badge' was inadvertently dictated or typed.
It is further submitted that the D.I.G. Of a Range certainly knows as to what sort of badge is approved for various ranks. There would have been no reason for him to take the disciplinary action, if the appellant had been putting on the proper prescribed badge. The appellant is just trying to exploit the abovementioned inadvertently dictated or typed error in the order, in order to defend himself. "
The above factual position makes it clear that there is force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was wearing a proper badge on his left shoulder which was according to the muster pattern approved by the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab but there was some misunderstanding/ mistake on the part of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gujranwala Range to observe that the Badge was not in accordance with the muster pattern approved by the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore.
8.The result is that the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside.
There is no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties. Announced in the Court on 30-1-1986.
M. Y. H. /95/Sr.P