The appellant, Muhammad Akram, ex-Constable Police has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned order, dated 17-1-1984 passed by the Superintendent of Police vide which the appellant was removed from service and the impugned orders, dated 13-5-1984 communicated vide endorsement, dated 26-5-1984 of D.I.G. Police, Sargodha Range vide which the departmental appeal was rejected. The appellant has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha, D.I.G. Police, Sargodha Range and Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents No. 1,2 and 3 respectively.
2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside and he may be reinstated in the service with full back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha issued show-cause notice under Rule 6(3) of Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 to the appellant on the following allegations:- "You were arrested by the Anti-Corruption Establishment as a result of a raid conducted on you while posted at P.P. Pull-II. You demanded and accepted Rs.300 from Yaqoob Khan son of Muhammad Nawaz Khan No Chak No. 107/SB, for a compromise between Muhammad Akbar and Yaqoob Khan. The tainted money of Rs.300 was recovered from your possession. Case F.I.R. No. 20, dated 27-11-1983 under section 161, P.P.C., 5(2)47 PCA was registered against you at P.S. ACE Sargodha. You were also suspended w.e.f. 27-11-1983."
The appellant pleaded not guilty and the Superintendent of Police after opportunity of personal hearing inflicted the penalty of removal from service over the appellant vide his order, dated 17-1- 1984. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed departmental appeal which was also rejected vide orders, dated 13-5-1984 of the D.I.G. Police, Sargodha. The appellant filed a ,representation before the I.G. Police which was also rejected vide orders, dated 23-4-1986 of Addl. I.G. Punjab Police.
Hence this appeal.
4. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant contended that a criminal case was also registered against the appellant under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as mentioned in the show-cause notice but the Superintendent of Police neither awaited the result of the Court proceedings nor conducted a regular enquiry against the appellant after issue of a show-cause notice. The learned counsel for the appellant added that in cases of corruption if the Superintendent of Police did not like to wait for the result of the proceedings he should have issued a charge-sheet instead of show-cause notice and got conducted a regular enquiry as required vide case of Muhammad Siddique Javed Chaudhry v. Government of the Punjab, reported as PLD 1974 SC 393. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the appellant was acquitted by the learned High Court vide judgment, dated 1-3-1986 but after pronouncement of this judgment the respondent did not give any relief to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant concluded his arguments while stating that corruption case has not been established against the appellant because the complainant had given an affidavit that he did not pay any illegal gratification to the appellant.
5. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated on the basis of preliminary objections raised by the respondents that the present appeal was time-barred because the impugned order, dated 15-1-1984 of the Superintendent of Police was upheld in appeal by the D.I.G.
Police , Sargodha vide his endorsement, dated 26-5-1984. The appellant filed appeal before the I.- G. Punjab Police, dated 28-5-1984 (copy at Annexure 'E' of the appeal). The appellant filed second appeal after his acquittal by the learned High Court on 12-3-1986 (copy at Annexure 'G' of the appeal). The learned District Attorney added that under Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules there was no scope for the second appeal. The learned District Attorney further stated that the appellant was not expected to wait for the decision of the learned High Court in the criminal case and as such the present appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal is time-barred because the appellant failed to avail the remedy before the Punjab Service Tribunal within time. The learned District Attorney closed his arguments while stating that the appellant was caught red-handed a raid through Magistrate and on basis of the proceedings the appellant was given show-cause notice and he was also personally heard and the impugned orders were justified and the affidavit from the complainant was manoeuvred by the appellant and had no effect.
6. I have carefully considered the points so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned District Attorney. I have also consulted the relevant record including the written objections of the respondents. I called for the relevant record through the learned District Attorney to find out whether the departmental appeal/mercy petition, dated 28-5-1984 filed by the appellant before the I.-G. Punjab Police (Copy at Annexure 'C' of the appeal) was previously disposed of preceding to filing the subsequent departmental appeal/mercy petition on 12-3-1986 (copy at Annexure 'G.' of the appeal). After repeated directions to the learned District Attorney I was able to get the record through the representative of the I.-G. On 15-12-1986. The record disclosed that there was no separate disposal of the original appeal of the appellant, dated 28-5-1984. The only order of the I.- G. Punjab Police was dated 23-4-1986 which was issued after filing the second appeal, dated. 12-3- 1986 by the appellant showing that he had already been acquitted by the learned High Court. As such to deal with the preliminary objection of the respondents as well as the learned District Attorney regarding time-barred appeal there is nothing on the record to show that the appellant could not file a second appeal after rejection of the first appeal by the D.I.-G. Or that the first appeal/mercy petition, dated 28-5-1984 was filed by the appellant and disposed of by the I.-G.
Preceding to the second appeal, dated 12-3-1986. Accordingly, the instant appeal is not time- barred. The period of limitation would obviously run from the impugned order, dated 23-4-1986 of the I.-G. Punjab Police. It is silent that he already disposed of any appeal. It is also silent that no second appeal lies. It also does not disclose that the I.-G. Appreciated the impact of the acquittal of the appellant by the learned High Court. Now on merits of the case obviously no regular enquiry was conducted against the appellant as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant supported by PLD 1974 SC 393. The Instructions of the I.-G. Were also communicated to all the Superintendents of Police to conduct a regular enquiry in cases of corruption but this is not the case of the present appeal. The Superintendent of Police should have either got conducted a regular enquiry or awaited the result of the criminal proceedings i.e. Decision of the Court. Now that no regular enquiry was conducted and the appellant was also acquitted by the learned High Court, the proceedings against the appellant under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 would not stand justified regarding the punishment of the appellant.
7. Hence the appeal is accepted and the impugned orders of they Superintendent of Police, D.I.-G.
Police and I.-G. Punjab Police are set aside. The appellant to be reinstated and the period of absence to be treated as kind of the leave due to appellant. There would be no bar to the competent authority (S.P.) if find it expedient on basis of sufficient evidence to proceed against the appellant after framing the charge-sheet and through conducting a regular enquiry.
Judgment to be communicated to the parties.
No order for the costs.
M.Y.H/106/Lb/S