' Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Excise and Taxation Inspector, Kasur. On 18-1-1989 at 1.0-00 a.m., the appellant alongwith Abdul Ghaffar Butt and Shaukat Ali, Clerks and Muhammad Farooq, Excise. Constable were surveying property at Ward No, 4, Kasur for the assessm ent of Property Tax. The men of Haji Sabir Ansari, Ex-MPA, Kasur took them to the Dera of Ex-MPA where many people have gathered. Ex-MPA asked them, why they were surveying the property and received illegal gratification from the owners. Ex-MPA called the Magistrate and Anti-Corruption Police. The appellant and his colleagues were searched but nothing was recovered from them. The Ex-MPA and the public levelled the allegation that the appellant and his colleagues have received Rs,42,700 as illegal gratification. Muhammad Jamal- ud-Din Khan arranged Rs,42,700 which were paid to the Ex-MPA. The appellant and his colleagues were handed over to the Anti-Corruption Department where they remained till midnight but were released due to intervention of the local M.N.A. The amount of Rs,42,700 was, however, returned by Ex-MPA to Muhammad Jamal-ud-Din, Excise Inspector on the ground that no shopkeeper was willing to take it back. Proceedings under Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 were taken against them. The Authorised Officer proceeded under rule 6(3) of Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 and issued show-cause notice to the appellant. The appellant denied the allegation but on the recommendations of Authorised Officer, the Authority, the Director Excise and Taxation vide order dated 19-10-1989 awarded the following penalties:--
1. Reduction to a lower post of Senior Clerk.
2. He will remain in a lower post for at least three consecutive years: The departmental appeal of the appellant was rejected on 12-9-1991. Hence this appeal.
2. I have heard the, learned counsel for the appellant,. District Attorney and have perused the record of the case and parawise comments submitted by the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant and his colleagues were performing their legal duty by surveying the property for assessment of a property tax. The owners of the property, do not want that survey should be conducted. They approached the local MPA who acted illegally and without justification to please the public which has gathered at his Dera. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the appellant has not been provided the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses' and no regular enquiry was conducted.
4. The appellant and his colleagues were taken to the Dera of MPA where they were searched but nothing was recovered from them. They were handed over to Anti-Corruption Police but no case was registered against them. They managed to pay Rs,42,700 to the MPA to be repaid to the persons from whom they have allegedly received illegal gratification. The money was returned because no shopkeeper/owner was willing to take back the money. For resolving controversial question of facts, full ledged enquiry proceedings and the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses to the appellant was necessary but no enquiry was conducted and the higher officers acted in a haste and under political will. The whole case/drama is full of doubts and controversial. I, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders dated 19-10-1989, 12-9-1991 and reinstate the appellant as Excise Inspector with all back/consequential benefits.
5. There will be no order as to costs.