Muhammad Pervez, Ex-Constable has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned orders dated 18-2-1985 passed by the Suprintendent of Police, Rawalpindi vide which the appellant was dismissed from the service and the order dated 6- 6-1985 of the D.-I.G. Police Rawalpindi Range vide which the departmental appeal was rejected.
The appellant has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, D.-I.G. Police, Rawalpindi and the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab as respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside and the appellant may be re-instated in the service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was charge-sheeted as follows vide orders dated 5- 6-1984 of the Superintendent of Police, Rawaplindi: - "You on deputation with Islamabad Police was posted at the guards of Qatar Embassy. On 1-5-1984 at 8-30 p.m., you were checked by Head Constable Allah Ditta No. 989 Incharge Sub-Sector (A) and you were found absent from the duty. On search by the HC, you were found rear side of the Embassy premises in naked position. The rifle was lying at the empty wooden boxes outside the store. You were indulging in immoral acts.
This amounts to misconduct as defined in the Punjab Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975, entailing you any of the major penalties including dismissal from service under Rule 4(b) of the Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975.
You are, therefore, called upon to submit your written defence within seven days of the receipt of this charge-sheet failing which it will be presumed that you have no defence to offer and the proposed action will be taken against you ex parte."
4. The appellant pleaded not guilty in his reply to the charge-sheet. After conducting the regular enquiry, through an Enquiry Officer the Superintendent of Police gave opportunity of the personal hearing to the appellant and dismissed from service vide order dated 18-2-1985. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed departmental appeal before the D.-I.G. Police, Rawalpindi Range which was rejected vide order dated 6-6-1985 communicated to the appellant vide Endorsement dated 27-6-1985. The appellant filed revision petition to the Inspector-General of Police and after awaiting 90 days submitted the instant appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal.
5. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the charge-sheet was incomplete because the nature of immorality and the name of the boy was not mentioned.
The learned counsel for the appellant added that the copy of the enquiry report was not given to the appellant. The learned counsel of the appellant further stated that there was no sufficient evidence for the criminal case. The learned counsel for the appellant stressed that the reporting Head Constable was not on duty. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the Head Constable who made complaint against the appellant gave the name of the appellant as Rafique Akhtar instead of Muhammad Rafique which indicated that the Head Constable was vindictive but the No. Of the appellant was mentioned in the report. The learned counsel for the appellant also raised the point that the impugned order was issued on 23-9-1985 but was implemented with effect from 18-2-1985 being the date of the personal hearing of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant conducted his arguments while stating that the loaning authority should have initiated the case and then if major penalty was involved, forwarded the case to the Parent Department.
6. The learned Deputy District Attorney opposed the appeal that in the instant case regular enquiry was conducted and the appellant was inflicted the penalty after being given the chance to contest the enquiry proceedings as well as after the personal hearing before the Superintendent of Police.
The learned D.D.A. Added that. For the misconduct of the appellant it was not necessary that the Head Constable who registered the report against the appellant should be on duty because for such misconduct even a private person could make a report. The learned Deputy District Attorney further stated that undisputedly correct No. Of the appellant was given by the Head Constable in the report and the slight mistake in the name of the appellant is not material. The learned Deputy District Attorney closed his argument while stating that the appellant was rightly punished. By the Superintendent of Police and it was not necessary to send his case to any other authority for inflicting of the major penalty.
7. I have carefully considered the points argued by the learned counsel of the appellant and learned D . D. A . And I have also consulted the relevant record including the departmental written objection. In the instant case as has been stated above a regular enquiry was conducted by the appellant who was given full and sufficient chance to defend him. The Head Constable Allah Ditta made a report against the appellant who has no grudge or prejudice against the appellant. This is enough that the appellant was found absent from duty and instead he was found naked somewhere else while placing his rifle at the crates and there was suspicion that the appellant was indulging in the immorality. As such, it was not necessary that the name of the boy should be subscribed or the case should be sufficient for the prosecution of the appellant in the criminal Court. As regards the jurisdiction of the appellant's punishing authority, he does not appear to have raised this point in the departmental appeal and at least the D.-I.G. Rawalpindi Range was proper authority who heard the departmental appeal and confirmed the penalty inflicted over the appellant. However, the material point remains in the field namely that the enquiry report was not furnished to the appellant. The D .-I . G . Police in the written objection on this point mentioned in the paragraph 10 (vii) that the appellant did not ask for the enquiry report. In this regard the directions contained in the case Federation of Pakistan v. Abdul Razzaq 1983 SCMR 229 in which the Hon'able Judges of the Supreme Court observed as follows:- "Since the inquiry report was not shown to the appellant, he did not know anything about adverse findings of the inquiry report. The appellant would, therefore, be deemed not to have been given a reasonable opportunity of defence. These mandatory requirements of law having been ignored the appellant shall be deemed to have been re-instated in service with effect from the date he was removed from service. However, the respondents have the option of proceeding against the appellant afresh if they so desire after satisfying the requirements of law which had been earlier overlooked."
8. These directions have been constantly followed by the Punjab Service Tribunal in appeal cases where copies of enquiry reports were not supplied to the appellant.
Hence the appeal is accepted and the case is remanded to the authority for removal of the defects from the stage of supply of copy by the Superintendent of Police to the appellant and then after opportunity of personal hearing for the issue of the fresh order. Meanwhile the appellant to be re-instated to clothe him with the status of the civil servant. The period of absence of the - appellant to be determined by the authority.
No order for the costs.
A.A. /118/Lb.S