FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER). --Muhammad Altaf, ex-Constable No.199, District Jhelum has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned order dated 27-10-1984 vide which the appellant was dismissed from 'service by the Superintendent of Police and order dated 12-2-1985 of the DIG Police vide which the departmental appeal was rejected and the final order dated 4-6-1986 of the Additional I.G. Police vide which his mercy petition was rejected. The appellant has impleaded the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, the DIG Police, Rawalpindi Range and Superintendent of Police, Jhelum as respondents No.1, 2 & 3 respectively.
2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order dated 27-10-1984 of the S.P. Dated 12-2-1985 of the DIG Police and dated 4-6-1986 of the I . G Police may be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service with back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Alhaj Nazir Ahmad, resident of Mohallah Chistian, Jhelum City submitted an application to the DSP Saddar Jhelum alleging that the constable Muhammad Altaf No.199 (appellant) posted at Police Station Dina used to visit his house when the complainant was at Saudi Arabia and meanwhile developed illicit relation with his were. The DSP Saddar conducted a preliminary enquiry into the allegations and examined the complainant his sons Zulfiqar Ahmad aged 17 years and Iftikhar Ahmad aged 15 years and local residents Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Alam and Liaquat Ali who categorically stated that the Constable Muhammad Altaf No.199 developed illicit relation with Mst.Khurshid Begum and used to visit the complainant's house frequently while the complainant was at Saudi Arabia. During the proceedings of enquiry the Complainant Alhaj Nazir Ahmad also produced National Identity Card, photographs, items of uniform and recruit law course books belonging to the constable Muhammad Altaf (appellant) which were recovered from the trunk lying in the house of the complainant. The statement of Constable Muhammad Altaf No.199 was also recorded by the DSP on 20-6-1984. On the basis of the findings of the DSP the appellant was issued show-cause notice dated 11-7-1984 by the Superin--tendent of Police, Jhelum under rule 6(3),(1)(a), (b) by way of General Police proceedings under Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975. The appellant filed a written statement. The Superintendent of Police after granting an opportunity of personal hearing on 27- 10-1984 dis--missed him from the service vide his order dated 27-10-1984. Aggrieved against this order the appellant filed departmental appeal before the DIG Police Rawalpindi Range which was rejected vide order dated 12-2-1985 and finally the appellant filed a mercy petition which was also rejected by the Additional I . G . Police vide his order dated 4-6-1986.
4. Before the case could be admitted to the regular hearing the learned counsel for the appellant was facilitated with written documents of the respondent Department as well as allowed the inspection of the relevant record including the proceedings of the preliminary enquiry conducted by the DSP Jhelum against the appellant and the preliminary arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant were heard. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was not allowed to cross-examine the complainant and other prosecution witnesses in the preliminary enquiry. The learned counsel for the appellant added that the appellant was not given a copy of the prelimi--nary enquiry report. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the questioned articles belonging to the appellant were not recovered from the house of the complainant in his presence. The learned counsel for the appellant concluded his arguments while stating that the complaint of Alhaj Nazir Ahmad was based on ground of enmity because the complainant had obtained Rs.15,000 from the appellant for procuring a visa in favour of the appellant for Saudi Arabia.
Line miss in book 739 counsel for the appellant. We have perused the contents of the appeal and the documents relied upon by the appellant. We have also examined the relevant record produced by the representative of the Department including the preliminary enquiry conducted by the DSP Headquarters, Jhelum against the appellant. We find from the statement of the complainant Alhaj Nazir Ahmad who deposed before the DSP on 12-6-1984, that his complaint was factually correct and Muhammad Altaf, Constable of Police Station Dina 'has illicit relations with his were and accordingly he has verbally divorced his were. Zulfiqar Ahmad aged 17 years and Iftikhar Ahmad aged 15 years sons of the complainant supported their father on allegations of illicit relations of Muhammad Altaf with their mother during absence of their father Alhaj Nazir Ahmad (complainant). Zulfiqar Ahmad stated that he had tried to disuade his mother but she got him beaten up by Muhammad Altaf.
Similarly Iftikhar Ahmad said that whenever Muhammad Altaf would visit their residence, Muhammad Altaf and their mother would shut themselves in a room and send them to Baithack.
Iftikhar Ahmad also stated that their mother has now gone to the house of Muhammad Altaf.
Likewise Haji Muhammad Sharif brother of Haji Nazir Ahmad, Muhammad Alam, Liaquat Ali neighbours of the complainant supported Haji Nazir Ahmad. The DSP also took into his possession the Police recruit law course books, National Identity Card of the appellant, Muhammad Altaf, two photographs of Muhammad Altaf, one photograph of Mst. Khurshid Begum were of the complainant, the marriage deed of Mst.Parveen Akhtar sister of Muhammad Altaf, uniform of the appellant, official boots and other personal articles of Muhammad Altaf vide recovery memo dated 19-6-1984.
6. The appellant in his statement recorded by the said DSP Headquarters pleaded that their family had intimate relations with the family of Alhaj Nazir Ahmed (complainant). He had given Rs.10,000 to the complainant Nazir Ahmad so that he could visit Saudi Arabia to earn his livings but meanwhile he was employed as Constable. The appellant explained that the complainant on return from Saudi Arabia had given presents to his sister, his mother. Subsequently while the appellant was at Police Station Dina on 10,6-1984, daughter of the complainant visited him saying that her mother was beaten by her father and she should be taken to her mother at Faisalabad or she should be seated on bus. But, instead of taking her to her mother she was taken to the house of appellant's sister. He informed the complainant that his daughter was with him but he was threatened and ultimately he produced the girl of the complainant at Police Station Jhelum who was handed over to her father. In his written statement to the show-cause notice also the appellant admitted that his identity card etc. Were with the appellant and almost his version was identical to his statement made before the DSP Hqrs.
7. The statement of the appellant before the DSP Headquarters as well as his written statement to the show-cause notice both would disclose that the appellant had intimate relations with the family members of the complainant. The appellant had full knowledge of the enquiry and did not say before the DSP in his statement recorded by him or mentioned in his explanation to the show- cause notice issued by the Superintendent of Police that he required to cross-examine the witnesses or wanted to consult the enquiry report. Rather both the statements of the appellant if for arguments sake without conceding are taken into consideration without reference to the proceedings of the preliminary enquiry or its report, are enough to establish that the appellant has not been able to show as to how his national identity card, his uniform including boots, recruit law course books and other personal articles including marriage deed of his sister were recovered from his trunk lying in the house of the complainant. If the appellant had no such intimate relations why should he harbour the daughter of the complainant with him and instead of directly taking her to her mother per her own desire or to her father in the alternative as indicated in his written explanation to the show-cause notice issued by the S.P. Took her to the residence of his sister. The very production of girl of the complainant before the Police Station Jhelum when the appellant was posted at Dina would further establish the misconduct of the appellant. The appellant has tried to suggest through copy of plaint of were of the complainant regarding suit for dissolution of marriage dated 21-6-1984 that the appellant had given money to complainant Nazir Ahmad.
Without prejudice to the merits of this suit this appears an arranged matter because the complainant already gave a statement before the DSP Headquarters on 12-6-1984 that he divorced his were due to her illicit relations with Muhammad Altaf.
8. Hence we did not find appellant to be handicapped in any manner for not cross-examining the prosecution witnesses or for not being given copy of the enquiry report rather the explanation of the appellant in answer to the show cause notice issued by the Superintendent of Police is sufficient to support the impugned order dated 27-10-1984 of the Superintendent of Police as well as the order of the DIG Police dated 12-2-1985 and the Additional I.G. Police dated 4-6-1986.
Accordingly we find no force in the appeal which is dismissed in limine.
A.E./129/Sr.P.