MIAN FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER).--The appellant Muhammad Baqir, Head Constable has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab service Tribunal Act, 1974 against the order dated 17-3-1985 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Toba Tek Singh (copy at Annexure IC' of the appeal) vide which the appellant was inflicted penalty of reduction of pay by two increments and the appellant who was officiating ASI was also reverted to his substantive rank of Head Constable per same order and the order dated 6-7-1985 of the DIG Police, Faisalabad Range vide which the name of the appellant was removed from List-D with effect from 6-7-1985 under the Police Rules 13.12 (2) and 16.33. The appellant has impleaded the Deputy Inspector-General of Police of Faisalabad Range and Superintendent of Police, Toba Tek Singh as (respondents No.1 & 2) respectively.
2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Muhammad Baqir was charge-sheeted by the Superintendent of Police on the following allegations:
(i) He accompanied by ASI Mumtaz Ahmed visited Chak No.241/GB, P.S. Sadar Gojra, and took Javaid Iqbal s/o Ghulam Rasul, Ex-Chairman, caste Arain, No Chak No.241/GB of P.S. Sadar Gojra in a car which was being used by him at that time. On reaching the Police Station he took Rs.400 as hire charges of the car and thus misused his official position as a public servant, by accepting Rs.400 as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration.
(ii) Besides the above he in consultation /cooperation with the SHO Inspector Imdad Ali committed high-handedness on said Javaid Iqbal on the instigation of Muhammad Sarwar, Lumberdar of Chak No.241/GB, so much so he forced Maqbool and Bhola an accused involved in case FIR No.137 dated 11-7-1984 U/S 10 of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 to commit sodomy on said Javaid Iqbal and thus abetted the commission of offence U/S 12 of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979.
Prima facia a charge of grave misconduct /corruption is made out against him hence this statement of allegation for major penalty including dismissal from service under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975."
The appellant pleaded not guilty. The Superintendent of Police appointed PDSP, Toba Tek Singh to conduct a regular enquiry into the charges against the appellant. The Enquiry Officer held the appellant guilty of the charges except of sodomy. After opportunity of personal hearing the Superintendent of Police awarded the punishment of reduction in pay by two increments to the appellant and further more also reverted him to his substantive rank of Head Constable from the officiating rank of ASI. In addition to this the DIG, Faisalabad Range due to infliction of the said penalty removed the name of the appellant from list-D vide order dated 6-7-1985 under the provision of Police Rules 13.12(2) and 16.33. The appellant appears to have filed departmental appeal against the orders of the Superintendent of Police but as he was subsequently dismissed as a result of other departmental proceedings, therefore, his said departmental appeal could not be disposed of. Hence this appeal.
4. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant contended that in case of appellant second enquiry was conducted which could not be done. The learned counsel relied in the case 1985 PLC (C.S.) 1108. The learned counsel for the appellant added that the proceedings against the appellant were held but he was not given any opportunity to contest the same. The learned counsel relied the case PLJ 84 Tribunal Cases P-173. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the enquiry report was not supplied to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant stressed that the impugned order is illegal. The learned counsel for the appellant closed the arguments while stating that the impugned orders are unjustified.
5. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that the points raised by learned counsel for the appellant are unfounded: He was supported by the PDSP/Enquiry Officer alongwith enquiry proceedings and he disclosed that Muhammad Baqir appellant had participated in the proceedings, signed the proceedings of enquiry while making the statement etc. And the enquiry proceedings were conducted according to the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975 and the appellant was fully associated in the enquiry proceedings. The learned District Attorney concluded his arguments and stated that the impugned orders were fully justified and the punishment was lenient. Similarly, reversion of the appellant from officiating rank, as well as removal from List-D were also justified in spite of proved allegations against the appellant.
6. We have carefully considered the points so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned District Attorney. We have also consulted the relevant record including the written objections. We are of the considered opinion that there seems to be no bar for conducting the second enquiry against the appellant. However, there is force in the material objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that no enquiry report was supplied to the appellant. The respondents in their written objections tried to explain that the, enquiry report .Was made available to the appellant but he failed toy collect the same wilfully. This explanation is unfounded because there is nothing on the record to show that the respondent issued any letter to the appellant showing its number as well as the date to collect the copy of the enquiry report but the appellant deliberately did not collect the report. In the absence of any such record we are inclined to believe that the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the appellant.
7. Hence the appeal is accepted and the case is remanded to the authority for conducting fresh proceedings from the stage of supplying the copy to the appellant.
Judgment to be communicated to the parties.