' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---The facts of this appeal are that the appellant Muhammad Zahir son of Pir Muhammad Shawani was working as Constable in the Pakistan Railway Police and posted at Quetta. While he was on guard duty at Railway Station, Quetta from 1200 hrs to 0300 hrs on the night between 2-8-1993 and 3-8-1993, he entered the Ladies Waiting Room and tried to outrage the modesty of one woman namely Ghulam Fatima who was sleeping there with her kids. The lady raised cries and her husband Hazoor Bukhsh and others woke up.
Hazoor Bukhsh husband of woman resisted on which appellant slapped him on his face. It is alleged that Constable Sarfaraz Khan also saw the incident. The appellant went away. The husband of woman reported the matter to S.H.O. In writing. The departmental proceedings were initiated and the appellant was served with a show-cause notice on 3-8-1993 by the Superintendent of Railway Police, Quetta and appointed Ch. Muhammad Latif, D.R.P., Quetta Inquiry Officer. In reply to the show-cause notice, he only stated that he has no concern with the incident and Sarfaraz Khan had tried to involve him falsely due to enmity. Thereafter, he made an application on 11-8-1993 to the Inquiry Officer wherein he requested to produce two defence witnesses namely Muhammad Ali and a Chowkidar on duty at the Vending Shop. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and recorded the statements of Mst. Ghulam Fatima, lady passenger, Mst. Bahar, Hazoor Bukhsh, the husband of Mst. Ghulam Fatima, Sarfaraz Khan, and Zahoor Ahmad, Police Constables. All these statements were recorded in presence of the appellant and appellant cross-examined the witnesses, as per record available on the file. The statements of defence witnesses produced by the appellant, namely Muhammad Ali and Nek Nazar, Chowkidar were also recorded by the Inquiry Officer. On the basis of statements of prosecution witnesses and considering the defence, the.Inquiry Officer found him guilty of the charge. The Superintendent of Police, Pakistan Railways Police, Quetta after considering the findings of the Inquiry Officer, passed the order dated 25-8-1993 whereby the appellant was awarded the punishment of forfeiture of two years permanent service, and the appellant was transferred from P.R.L., Quetta to R.O.P. Spin Tangi.
Being aggrieved the appellant filed departmental appeal dated 1-9-1993 to the D.I.-G., Lahore against the order passed by the S.P., Railway Police. The D.I.-G., in his revisional powers under Rule 16.28 of Pakistan Railway Police Rules, 1980, issued a show-cause notice on 29-11-1993, disagreeing with the punishment awarded by S.P., and called upon the appellant to show cause as to why the punishment may not be enhanced to dismissal from service. The appellant submitted reply to the show-cause notice on 5-12-1993 denying the charge levelled against him and again stated that it was due to enmity of Sarfaraz Khan Constable. Finally, the D.I.-G. Passed the order dated 11-1-1994 whereby the appellant was dismissed from service. He then preferred this appeal before the Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
2. We have heard Mr. Nazir Hussain Shah, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant. It is argued that under Rule 6(b) of the Railway Servants (E&D) Rules, it was mandatory that seven days time should have been given to the appellant to furnish reply to the show cause, whereas he was given only one day, and as such there is clear violation of rules and the proceedings suffer from legal infirmity. It is argued that the appellant has been made victim due to enmity of Sarfaraz Khan, Constable; and that copy of inquiry report and statement of allegations were not furnished to the appellant and as such he was prejudiced in putting up his defence, therefore, appeal be allowed.
3. Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the appellant pis being governed by the Pakistan Railway Police Rules, 1980 and under these rules the appellant was served a show-cause notice, a regular inquiry was held and the D.I.-G. Under Rule 16.28 under the revisional jurisdiction rightly enhanced the punishment after serving on him the show-cause notice and affording the appellant personal hearing, where the appellant could not prove his innocence. Therefore, all the proceedings conducted against the appellant are in accordance with law and there is no infirmity. As regards, supply of inquiry report and giving of seven days time, instead of one day, the learned counsel submitted that there is no such provision and that reply is to be furnished within 48 hours as provided under these rules. He argued that the appellant being a member, of discipline force and the charge being a heinous one, the D.I.-G.
Awarded the appropriate punishment.
4. The appellant was served with a show-cause notice on the allegation that he outraged modesty of one woman, Mst. Ghulam Fatima, a lady passenger who had come from Khanpur with her husband for treatment of her son, and the appellant was recognised by her and the husband of woman caught the appellant and he was slapped by the appellant. This incident took place in the presence of other lady passenger and Constable Sarfaraz Khan was also one of the eye-witnesses to it. A regular inquiry was conducted into the charge by Inquiry Officer who examined the prosecution and defence witnesses in presence of the appellant and he also examined those witnesses, and the Inquiry Officer after recording their statements held the appellant guilty of the charge. The appellant has alleged enmity on the part of Constable Sarfaraz Khan, but the fact is that it was not at his instance that this charge was levelled against the appellant, but the complainant Mst. Ghulam Fatima and her husband reported the matter in writing to the S.H.O.
About this offence and appellant has not alleged any enmity or mala fide on their part as they belonged to Khanpur and had come to Quetta for treatment of their son. Mst. Ghulam Fatima and other witnesses who are independent supported the allegations. Therefore, it was a matter of direct incident where documentary evidence is not required to be produced. Moreover, the defence witnesses produced by the appellant also did not support the case of .The appellant and have shown their ignorance about this incident. Therefore, the charge leveled against the appellant stands fully proved against him. As regards, the contention of appellant that only one day was given to him for furnishing reply to the show-cause notice, it would suffice to say that he had not taken this point in reply to show-cause notice, but on the contrary submitted his reply within the specified period and also associated in the inquiry proceedings, as such no prejudice is caused to appellant. Under Railway Police Rules, 1980, reply was to be given within 48 hours as has been done in the case and there is no infirmity in the proceedings. Furthermore, in the circumstances of the case when the appellant duly participated in the enquiry proceedings and all the witnesses were examined in his presence and he was afforded opportunity of cross-examination of those witnesses, there was no necessity of furnishing copy of inquiry report, and failure to do so has not prejudiced the case of the appellant in any way. Therefore, the objection of the learned counsel for the appellant is untenable. It may also be observed that the Superintendent of Police, Pakistan Railways Police, did not take into cognizance of the gravity of the incident and took a lenient view, and awarded a punishment which was not commensurate with the charge of offence, and the D.I.- G. Rightly invoked the revisional jurisdiction and after affording the appellant opportunity of showing cause and personal hearing passed the order of dismissal from service, and we are of the yiew that this order is just and proper as the appellant being a custodian of law and even life and property of public, committed such a heinous offence and tried to outrage the modesty of lady passenger who had come from Khanpur to Quetta for treatment of her ailing son, and such a person should not have been leniently dealt with by S.P. But, on the other hand, is entitled to exemplary punishment which has rightly been awarded.
5. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in appeal and it is dismissed with costs.