NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).---Appellant Muhammad Haroon, ex-Constable No. 4702 filed this appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal against the impugned order dated 4-12-1993 of SSP, Islamabad (respondent No. 2) in which the appellant was dismissed from service under Police Rule 12.21 and directed the SHO, Kohsar to register a criminal case against him.
2. The allegations against the appellant are that the appellant alongwith another Constable namely Gulzar Ahmed No. 4740 armed with automatic weapons came to Margala Road, F-6/2, Islamabad to the parking areas where a car of Mr. Justice Scott son of a Diplomate alongwith a daughter of Mr. Bazant Diplomate of United Nations, was parked. Appellant alongwith co--- accused asked them at gun point to hand over everything which they have got. As a result they have handed over Rs.200 and a wrist watch of the girl. The matter was reported to the SHO Kohsar by one JMJ Collard, Duty Officer British Embassy. The SHO Kohsar went to the spot and found appellant and Constable Gulzar Ahmed who have committed the above offence, also recovered Rs.200 and a wrist watch from the Constables. During the investigation the SHO recorded the statement of Mr. Bazant father of the girl and Muharrar of the Police Station Amjad Mehmood, the recovery of Rs.200 and wrist watch was made before him. The statement of appellant and co--- accused Gulzar Ahmad was also recorded. 1n their statements they have admitted that they have been given Rs.200 and one wrist watch by the couple and the same was returned to the SHO Kohsar and requested him to forgive them for their misconduct. The SHO Kohsar after recording the statements reported the matter to the higher officers to take action against them.
3. On 4-12-1993 SSP, Islamabad dismissed the appellant from service under Police Rule 12.21 and directed the SHO Kohsar to register case against him and proceed legally.
4. The appellant made departmental appeal to the I.-G. Police, Islamabad who after affording opportunity to the appellant heard him personally. The appeal was rejected by the I.-G. Police on 29-1-1994. He filed this appeal before the Service Tribunal on 7-2-1994 under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
5. We have heard Mr. Gul Muhammad Durrani, learned counsel for the appellant who reiterating the grounds of appeal argued that without any inquiry or evidence the appellant was straightaway dismissed from service by the S.P., Islamabad. Further argued that the police official should have been proceeded under Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 but the respondents illegally resorted to repealed Police Rule 12.21. Thus order is illegal one. No inquiry was held, no show-cause notice was given and even the appellant was not confronted with the allegations or afforded opportunity of personal hearing by respondent No. 2 before passing order dated 4-12-1993. The appellant was innocent and was falsely involved. The appellant was condemned unheard which is against the principle of natural justice.
6. The respondents have filed their comments wherein they stated that 1994 Muhammad Haroon v.
Inspector-General of Police no appeal lies against an order made under Police Rule 12.21 as the appellant was discharged under the same Police Rules. The appeal filed by the appellant is not tenable under the law. The appellant alongwith co-accused Constable Gulzar Ahmad looted Rs.200 and a wrist watch at the point of automatic weapon. The same were recovered by the SHO, Kohsar from appellant and his co-accused. The statement of all concerned including the appellant were duly recorded. The appellant in his statement as well as verbally has confessed his guilt and requested for pardon. Thus the S.P., Islamabad punished the appellant after thorough inquiry by the S.H.O., Kohsar. The orders of both the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are correct and according to law.
The respondent No.1 had passed the order under Police Rule 12.21, which is reproduced below for ready reference: "Discharge of inefficient---A constable who is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer may be discharged by the Superintendent at any time within three years of enrolment, There shall be no appeal against an order of discharge under this rule."
The contention of the appellant is incorrect. No such further inquiry was necessary as per rule. The orders passed by the appellate authority are not ex parte. The appellant was duly granted personal hearing to offer his defence but he just requested to be pardoned for his misconduct. Police Rule 12.21 has not been substituted by Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. The above--said rules are still in existence and valid and applicable to the officials who fail to prove themselves efficient within 3 years. Police Rules 16.381(1) and (2) is not applicable as these have been repealed by rule 15 of Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975.
7. We have thoroughly perused the record and heard arguments of the parties at length. We see no reason to interfere because both orders of SSP and L-G.P., Islamabad dated 4-12-1993 and 29-1- 1994 are not illegal and invalid. The appellant alongwith co-accused Gulzar Ahmad have extracted Rs.200 and wrist watch at the gun point from the couple. The SHO, Kohsar has investigated the matter, recorded the statements of witnesses alongwith appellant and his accomplice. The recovery of Rs.200 and wrist watch was made before witness Amjad Mehmood, from the appellant and his co-accused Gulzar Ahmad. The receipt of watch by father of the girl from the SHO Kohsar, which is on the record, and statements of both the appellant and co---accused Gulzar Ahmad and their confession in their statements and request for pardon, are such documents which indicate thorough inquiry and sufficient to give them opportunity of being heard. The above evidence recorded by SHO Kohsar and the confession and request for pardon is sufficient ground to discharge the appellant from service. Therefore no need of giving show-cause notice to the appellant as he had himself pleaded guilty. According to record the appellant was given sufficient opportunity to explain his position by both the S.P. And I.-G. Police, Islamabad but he had failed to do so as he was conscious about his guilt. The plea of the appellant that couple was engaged in committing `Zina' in the car then it was their duty being police officials to take them to police station for the crime, but instead of doing so they have extracted Rs.200 and a wrist watch from them. It is an act of dacoity, which could not be approved by respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
8. In the above circumstances, we see no reason that the appellant was discharged/dismissed from service without giving opportunity and illegally. Thus the orders of both the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are correct and, legal. The appeal of the appellant is rejected. No order for cost. Parties be informed.