ABDUL AZIZ MALIK, MEMBER-I.- Muhammad Iqbal appellant (Ex constable No. 571) while serving, in Okara District was proceeded against departmentally, by way of general police proceedings, under Rule 6(3)(i) of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975, and on having been found guilty of the charge of mis-conduct, was served with the show cause notice dated 19.8.1986, for imposition of major penalty, by the Superintendent of Police, Okara, (Respondent No. 3) to the following effect:- "Accused Manzoor Shah, Yousaf and Mohey-ud-Din, forcibly snatched a moter-cycle No. LET 7840 from one Amjad Ali Khan of Rivaz Garden, Lahore, in the area of P.S. Wahdat Colony, Lahore and case FIR No. 31 dt. 31.1.86 u/s 379 PPC read with section 14/7/79 Islamic Laws was registered at said police station.
On 26.7.86, Renala Sadar Police took into possession above said stolen moter-cycle from you constable Muhammad Iqbal No. 571. You could not produce any document of the motorcycle as proof of its ownership. You were arrested in the above said case and during interrogation, you get recovered one more stolen moter cycle No. LEZ 4220, pertaining to case FIR No. 359 dated 12.11.84 u/s 379 PPC, PS Wahdat Colony, Lahore belonging to one Muhammad Sabtain of Bilal Ganj, Lahore.
Both the moter cycles were duly identified by the complainants of the above said cases. You were arrested for receiving stolen property of theft/robbery cases and were challaned to Court.
By reasons of the above, you constable Muhammad Iqbal No. 571, appear to be guilty of mis- conduct under 3(a) of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules 1975 and as such are liable for disciplinary action for imposition of any of the major punishment under the rules ibid. Having considered the facts, I have determined it to be a fit case to initiate disciplinary action by way of General Police proceedings as per laid down in Rule 6(3)(i) of the above said Rules, without enquiry by an enquiry officer as regular departmental proceedings are not considered necessary in it.
You are hereby called upon to show cause within 7 days of the receipt of this notice, as to why proposed action may not be taken against you stating at the same the whether you desire to be heard in person or otherwise."
2. The Superintendent of Police Okara (Respondent No. 3), after observing all legal formalities, dismissed the appellant from service, vide his impugned order dated 12.10.1986 the operative portion of which is reproduced below:- "Constable Muhammad Iqbal No. 571 was served with show cause notice No: 816/St dated 19.8.1986.
The constable submitted his written reply to the show cause notice and has also been heard in person in the Orderly Room today. His written as well as verbal explanation were given due consideration. The accused constable has tried to plead innocent in the matter little knowing that the moter- cycles subject matter of the show cause notice were taken into possession by the Police from his possession. He has failed to give any plausible explanation for the retention of the vehicle with him. Thus the defence version produced by the delinquent official is without any substance and hence no sanctity can be attached to it. It has been established beyond all shadow of doubt that he is associate of motorcycle lifters. The delinquent official has inculcated in himself the habit to resort to crime rather than to detect it which was his basic duty. He appears to have lost all justification to continue his existence as member of the Force and thus deserves no leniency. Consequently he is dismissed from the Police Force w.e.f. 12.10.1986 (A.N.) as his further retention in the Department will not serve any useful purpose.
3. Against that order the appellant preferred a departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, Police, Lahore Range, Lahore (Respondent No. 2), who rejected the same, vide his impugned order dated 6.12.1988 with the. Following observantions:- "I have heard the appellant in person and have also minutely examined the relevant papers.
There is no merit in the appeal. It is a matter of record that the stolen motorcycles were recovered from the possession of the appellant for which he has no explanation. The fact that he was acquitted in the Cort on account of failure of prosecution does not have a bearing on the appeal because the acquittal appears to be the result of winning over some witnesses by the accused.
Finding no merit, the appeal is rejected."
4. Feeling aggrieved the appellant Filed a revision petition before the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore (Respondent No.1), which was rejected by him, vide his impugned order dated 16.12.1990. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:- "I have gone through the petition in question as well as the comments offered thereon. The petitioner was heard in person on 24.9.1990. He was dismissed (12.10.1986) from service due to his involvement in two theft cases of Police Station Wahdat Colony, Lahore, in which two stolen motor cycles were recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner was acquitted by the learned Court on the criminal charge, but this does not debar the department-from holding of departmental proceedings and during the course of inquiry, it was established that his conduct was not suitable for that needed in a Police officer and was unbecoming of a Police subordinate.
In view of the above the petition does not merit any consideration and the same is, therefore, rejected in public interest."
5. The appellant has now come up in appeal before this Tribunal, under Section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunal's Act, 1974.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that:- i) The impugned orders of the Respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 are illegal, without jurisdiction, malafide and against the facts of the case and the departmental instructions on the subject. ii) The appellant was acquitted in the criminal proceedings, due to which the Respondents were barred from taking departmental action against the appellant.
7. Learned D.A. Adequately controverted the above noted contentions of the appellant's counsel by contending that:- i) Two stolen motorcycles were recovered by the police from the possession of the appellant, regarding which he could not justify his conduct. ii) That the appellant was acquitted in the criminal proceedings due to resiling of both the recovery witnesses examined by the prosecution (in each of the two criminal cases), under influences and pressure of the appellant. iii) That under the law the Respondents were fully competent to take departmental action against the appellant under the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975, and that impugned orders of the Respondents were prefectly legal and free from any discrepancy warranting their reversal by this Tribunal.
8. After having heard the parties at some length and on perusal of the record, we find that the charge against the appellant, for which he was dismissed from service by the Respondents stood proved against him from the relevant record beyond any reasonable doubt, and learned counsel for the appellant has failed to rebut it by means of any authentic oral or documentary evidence.
9. During his arguments learned counsel for the appellant has failed to substantiate any of his contentions noted in para 6 above, from the relevant record, or by means of any other evidence.
Learned counsel for the appellant could not bring out any illegality/irregularity in the departmental proceedings undertaken by the Respondents against the appellant culminating in his dismissal from service. He has failed to pin point any legal or factual infirmity in the above noted impugned orders of the Respondents, which are, therefore, held to be unexceptionable on facts law and jurisdiction. It is well settled law that in the given circumstances of the case the Respondents were fully competent to take departmental action against the appellant under the Punjab Police (E&D)
Rules 1975, besides initiating criminal proceedings against him on criminal charges for his trial by the Criminal Court.
10. The appellant being a member of Police force was found guilty of a heinous crime, which was obviously unbecoming and least expected of a custodian of law and order. As such the appellant did not deserve any lenient penalty short of dismissal from service.
11. Consequently the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit or substance, with no order as to costs.
Parties be informed.