MR. SAFDAR HUSSAIN SHAH JAFRI, MEMBER-I. The appellant. Ex- Constable No. 02902 Khalid Mehmood of District Rawalpindi was served with a notice, dated 12-5-1992 (Annexure-A) whereby he was called upon to show cause as to why "major punishment including dismissal from service" should not be imposed upon him on account of grave misconduct on his part, as spelled out therein and reproduced below:- "That you applied for the enlistment as Constable without disclosing that you served Pakistan Army from 3-1-1981 to 11-10-1982. Furthermore, you also failed to report that you are a Army convict. Thus you deliberately committed the above- mentioned misconduct just to join the Police Department which is against the spirit of Police Rule 12.27".
2. The Superintendent of Police (HQs). Rawalpindi considered his explanation and gave him personal hearing in the Orderly Room on 27-6-1992. He took note of the fact that the appellant applied for enlistment on Constable without disclosing that he had served Pakistan Army from 3-1- 1981 to 11-10-1982 and that he was an Army convict. The said respondent, therefore, came to the conclusion that the appellant had deliberately committed misconduct just to join the Police Department which was against the spirit of rule 12.27 of the Punjab Police Rules Vide his order, dated 13-7-1992. Therefore, he dismissed the appellant from service He filed an appeal before the D.I.G Police. Rawalpindi Region which was rejected by D.I.G, vide his order at (Annexure-E). The revision petition filed by the appellant was finally considered by the Additional I.G. Police who also rejected the petition vide his order, dated 8.1.1994 (Annexure-H). It was the appellant filed the instant appeal before this Tribunal on 7-2-1994 within the prescribed period of 30 days.
3. In the course of his arguments, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that although the matter had been brought to the notice of the Additional I.G. Police in the revision petition, yet he did not consider it from the angle of exemption provided under Rule 12.27 of the Punjab Police Rules which, allowed him the discretion to recruit in the Police Department even a person otherwise dismissed from any Government service. He asserted that the Army Certificate issued in favour of the appellant (Annexure-C) also, in a way. Indicated that he could be taken in civil employment for the reason that the conviction awarded by the Summary Military Court was not relatable to any immoral at on the part of the appellant. The learned counsel referred to the underlined part of the conviction order to substantiate his assertions. "No 3012209 DMT Khalid Mehmood has served in Corps of Artillery from 3rd Jan., 198l to 11th Oct., 1982. He was dismissed from service on 12th Oct., 1982 by a Summary Court Martial offence punishable under PA A Sec 37
(b) and PAA Sec 45 (a). He was awarded one year's R1 in civil Jail alongwith the dismissed from the service. His character was good at the the of dismissal and he was fit for the employment in any other civil department". Learned Counsel maintained that the order of the Army Authorities reproduced above and the discretion allowed to the I.G.Police under Rule 12.27 of the Punjab Police Rules really called for sympathetic consideration on the part of the I.G.Police who had not adverted himself to it.
4. Appearing on behalf of the respondent, the learned District Attorney refers to the provisions of Rule 12.27 reproduced below:- "No person who has been dismissed from any Government employment shall be recruited in the Police without the special sanction of the Inspector General"
The dismissed police employees have only been enlisted as such with the special sanction of the Inspector General of Police. Such sanction could not obviously be obtained by the recruiting officer because (as shown in the proforma signed by the appellant at the the of his recruitment as well he had not disclosed the fact that lie had served in the Army; that he had been awarded rigorous imprisonment in civil jail for the period of one year and that he had been dismissed from service by the Army Authorities. The learned District Attorney, therefore, maintains that the order of appointment of the appellant itself was illegal as it had been issued without the special sanction of the I.G.Police, lie is of the considered view that no compassion' should be shown to the appellant as he had not disclosed his background in the right earnest at the the of joining service in the Police Department. His view is that the appellant had very rightly been dismissed from service as his appointment itself was ab initio void and of no legal effect.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Learned counsels representing the appellant and the respondents and have pondered over the points raised by them in the course of civil employment and whether he could insist upon the exercise of discretion by the I.G. Police in his favour because he had served the Police Department for a long period of 9 years and 7 months.
6. Rule 12.27 of the Punjab Police Rules is quite clear, it does not debar enlistment of a dismissed Government Servant in the Police Department altogether, it. However, requires that such enlistment could only be ordered with the special sanction of the I.G.Police, it is true that the appellant did not disclose that lie had been dismissed from service in the Army as the relevant column in the proforma produced before me bearing the signatures of the appellant shows that he did not relate these events to the official who was filling in the form. The form was not III led in bv the appellant himself. The relevant portion contains neither admission nor denial of the past events that the appellant had faced in the Army. It is, therefore, difficult to assume in an unequivocal manner that he had actually tried to mislead the recruiting officer, in my opinion, the appellant who was not as well educated as to fill the prescribed proforma himself deserves to be treated the form might not have made any querries to ascertain whether the appellant had rendered service earlier or not.
7. The recruitment order actually suffers from a legal locuna inasmuch as the appellant could not have, in any case, been recruited without the special sanction of the I.G.Police. I am, therefore, of the view that unless the I.G. Police personal hears the appellant and agrees to accord special sanction in favour of the appellant to regularize the order of his appointment, it would not be legally correct to allow him to continue in service. The revision petition was heard by the Additional I.G. Police where as special sanction under Rule 12.27 of the Punjab Police Rules could be accorded/granted by the Inspector General of Police alone. The revision petition of the appellant should, therefore, have been considered by the I.G.Police himself as lie alone had the powers to accord special sanction to the enlistment of the appellant in service.
8. In view of the above discussion, I accept the appeal, order re-instatement of the appellant in service with immediate effect and remand the case to the I.G Police for passing final order keeping in view the provisions of Rule 12.27 of the Police Rules and shall also decide as to how the period during which the appellant had remained dismissed from service shall be treated while passing final order in the instant case.
9. The parties are left to bear their own costs.