' This appeal is directed against an order dated 30-12-1999 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Gujrat respondent No,1 whereby the appellant was awarded punishment of reversion to his substantive rank of Head Constable.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that on 3-12-1999 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Legal, Gujrat submitted a report to Senior Superintendent of Police, Gujrat stating therein that the appellant had registered a case F.I.R. No,321 of 1999, dated 28-11-1999 under section 509, P.P.C. At Police Station Lalamusa despite the fact that the offence under section 509; P.P.C. Was non-cognizable. At this Senior Superintendent of Police, Gujrat served the following show-cause notice upon the appellant:-- "D.S.P./Legal, Gujrat, vide his report dated 3-12-1999 has pointed out that one Anjum Rashid in Writ Petition No,21919 of 1999 Anjum Rashid v. S.H.O. Aired his grievances that case F.I.R. No,321, dated 28- 11-1999, under section 509, P.P.C., Police Station City Lalamusa, was registered against him, despite the fact that the offence was non-cognizable. The D.S.P./Legal further reported that on a perusal of the record it was found that the S.H.O. Police Station City Lalamusa, cancelled the F.I.R. Because proceedings under section 509, P.P.C. Initiated against the petitioner were not according to law.
' You have been held responsible for getting F.I.R. Of a non-cognizable offence registered and have, therefore, rendered you liable to disciplinary action on the charge of your poor knowledge of law displaying inefficiency amounting to misconduct on your part within the meaning of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975, on the subject."
' The appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice conceding that the offence under section 509, P.P.C. Was non-cognizable and the F.I.R. Had been registered by mistake. The case had been cancelled and a complaint under section 509, P.P.C. Filed in the Court. The explanation was not found satisfactory and the Senior Superintendent of Police passed the impugned order. The appellant filed a departmental appeal before Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Gujranwala respondent No,2 which was rejected. His revision petition before Inspector-General of Police respondent No,3 has also failed. This has led the appellant to file the present service appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal.
3. In support of appeal, the counsel contends that the lapse on the part of the appellant could not be termed as inefficiency and misconduct and as such the impugned order was not sustainable, that the appellant had been imposed major penalty without holding any regular enquiry which had resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the quantum of punishment was not compatitable with the gravity of offence in which no ulterior motive was involved.
4. Respondents have filed their written objections. The case of the department is that the appellant had conceded his mistake and as such no enquiry was warranted. The appellant with sufficient experience was expected to differentiate between the cognizable and non-cognizable offences and the entire department had to face embarrassment when a writ petition was filed in the Lahore High Court on the same issue. The appellant has thus been rightly punished.
5. Arguments were heard and record perused. The appellant had not denied that he registered a case under section 509, P.P.C. Which is admittedly non-cognizable. The Police official with more than 20 years standing is obviously expected to know the basic knowledge as to under which sections Police is competent to register a case. It is also matter of record that after the registration of the case under section 509, P.P.C. The accused party filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court and the department faced embarrassment. In the non-cognizable case the Police can only lodge a complaint in the Court. The appellant deviated from this procedure and to this extent was rightly held guilty of misconduct. The contention of the appellant that no motive was involved is irrelevant because the show-cause notice does not mention any corrupt motive on the part of the appellant and even otherwise the penalty would have decidedly been harsher if charge of corrupt motive had been proved.
6. This is, however, correct that omission had been rectified on the same day and the appellant had conceded his mistake voluntarily. Viewed in their context I think even a minor penalty would have met the ends of justice.
7. For the above reasons I partly allow the appeal and reduce the penalty from the reversion to the rank of Head Constable to withholding of promotion for one year and re-instate him to his rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector. There shall be no order as to the cost. Announced.