1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 22-10-2002 whereby the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), dismissed Appeal No,1931 of 2002 filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of his service through order, dated 20-6-2001.
2. ' It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the police force as A.S.-I. On 15-8-1989 and in routine secured promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector. In consequence to the direction of the Inspector- General of Police Punjab for ensuring good governance and cleansing Government machinery, an exercise was undertaken to weed out corrupt officers. In this background a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 12-6-2001 by the S.S.P., Faisalabad on the grounds of misconduct, inefficiency and corruption in the following terms:-- ' "On perusal of your service record, it has been found that you have stinking reputation. During your inning of service you made huge corruption as a result you became a black dot for the department. It has also been reported that your living standard is beyond to your earning."
3. ' The petitioner submitted his reply to the above show-cause notice and denied all the charges.
4. The S.S.P., Faisalabad gave him a personal hearing and after going through the entire record by taking into consideration his adverse A.C.Rs, dismissed the petitioner from service through his order, dated 20-6-2001. The petitioner submitted a departmental appeal against the above order, which was rejected by the D.I.-G., Faisalabad Range, vide his order, dated 10-8-2002. The petitioner then preferred the aforesaid appeal before the Tribunal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
5. ' It is inter alia argued by the learned counsel that the dismissal order of the petitioner has been passed without holding any enquiry and the alleged case of Zina in which the petitioner was involved had already resulted in his acquittal by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gojra. On this basis, the learned counsel has argued that the said case cannot be made basis for his dismissal from service.
6. We have considered the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the entire documents appended with this petition with his assistance. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that there were two charges against the petitioner; (i) that he had been enjoying living standard beyond his earning, and (ii) that his service record revealed that he had stinking reputation for having bad record of service and he was a black spot for the department. A perusal of the record further demonstrates that F.I.R. No,135 of 1999 was got registered against the petitioner on 6-5-1999 under section 10 (Enforcement of Hudood) Zina Ordinance, 1979 read with section .109, P.P.C. At Police Station City, Gojra, wherein the allegation was that he was found sitting naked on a cot with a woman. During the pendency of these proceedings he moved an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C., which was accepted and he was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gojra, on technical ground in spite of the fact that he was found naked with a lady in the quarters adjacent to the Police Station.
7. ' Subsequent to his acquittal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner was reinstated in service by the S.P., Toba Tek Singh by simple holding that since his application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Had been accepted and he had been acquitted from fhe charges, as such he was reinstated vide order, dated 28-10.-2000. The S.P. While reinstating him totally brushed aside the enquiry report which was got conducted by the D.S.P. (Headquarters) who reported therein that the petitioner had been found guilty during the course of investigation. As already stated the S.P.
8. Was only swa yed by the acquittal order passed by the , learned Additional Sessions Judge in issuing order of his reinstatement.
9. ' The perusal of the documents demonstrate that Mr. Shahzad Aslam, A.S.P./S.D.P.O., Gojra paid a surprise visit alongwith other police officials and found the petitioner in an objectionable posture with a lady in the police quarters. This factum of recording of F.I.R. And raid of the A.S.P. Has not been denied by the petitioner. Even the learned Additional Sessions Judge had dealt this aspect in the following manner while acquitting the petitioner:-- "Admittedly the raiding party raiding the house of the accused without any search warrant, not approved even if it was a prostitution den, the police could not enter without proper search warrants into the quarter of the accused and privacy cannot be disturbed. As per contents of the F.I.R. Both the accused Husnain Butt and Mst. Shaheen were found in the room naked that they were not kissing, embracing, lying on the same cot. The only alleged act of the accused is that they were sitting on the cot being naked. So even attempt to commit Zina is not made out against the petitioner accused by any of the laws relating to Hudood and even not punishable under any of sections of Penal Code or any other Penal Law. At the most they had the intention to commit Zina- bil-Raza but they did not commit Zina-bil-Raza. The P. Ws. Had not stated that they had seen the accused/ petitioners committing Zina-bil-Raza, but the police entered in the quarter of accused Hussain Butt they saw that both the accused sitting naked so having the intention to commit Zina- bilRaia."
10. The competent authority after examining the record issued the petitioner a show-cause notice and after confronting him with the same dismissed him from service through an order, dated 12-6-2001 and his appeal, as earlier stated, was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.
11. ' The argument of the learned counsel that proper enquiry was not conducted in the case is devoid of any force. In an identical case reported as The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore and others v. Anis-ur-Rehman Khan (PLD 1985 SC 134) where another police officer involved in similar situation was dismissed by the departmental functionaries. However, the trial Court acquitted him and on the basis of the same the tribunal ordered for his reinstatement by setting aside the dismissal order. This Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored that of the competent authority by dismissing the appeal of the official concerned dismissing him from service. It would be appropriate to reproduce the determination of this Court qua the question of holding an enquiry in such-like cases:-- ' "Under the Police Act fresh and separate rules have been framed for maintaining efficiency and discipline in the Police Force and these are Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 6 provides for three kinds of proceedings i.e, (i) Summary Police Proceedings, (ii) General Police Proceedings, (iii) Special Police Proceedings. In the case of General Police Proceedings as was resorted to in this case two procedures are prescribed as will appear from sub-rule (3) of rule 6 which is reproduced hereunder:-- "(3) If the authority decides to hold General Proceedings, the procedure shall be as under:--
(i) The authority shall determine whether in the light of facts of the case or in the interests of justice, a departmental inquiry, through an Inquiry Officer, is necessary, if it decides that it is not necessary, it shall--
(a) by order in writing inform the accused of the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and the grounds of the action; and
(b) give him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against that action: ' Provided that no such opportunity shall be given when the authority is satisfied that in the interest of security of Pakistan or any Part thereof, it is not expedient to give such opportunity."
12. ' A discretion has, therefore, been conferred on the competent authority to decide whether a departmental inquiry through an Inquiry Officer is not necessary. The exercise of this discretion is not controlled by any prerequisite or guidelines. All the same as held by the Tribunal, it should appear ex facie from the record to have been resorted to fairly and justly and not oppressively and perversely. In the case in hand there was ample justification for dispensing with the inquiry through an Inquiry Officer. A superior officer of the appellants had conducted the raid in the company of another functionary of the Martial Law Headquarters. The things appearing before the superior officer itself established that there was laxity in observing the discipline and there was breach of it.
13. On the facts, therefore, where a superior who has even otherwise the authority to control and supervise the functioning of his subordinate conducted such a raid, the results whereof were accepted by the appellants themselves, the resort to the show cause procedure without appointing any Inquiry Officer cannot on any principle be objected to as abuse of the discretion or unjustified in law."
14. ' It is not to be forgotten that the petitioner belonged to a disciplined force and being in custodian of law was required to protect the moral fibre, honour and dignity of the people at large.
15. Unfortunately, instead of protecting these values, he himself had indulged in the above immoral and nefarious activities. Admittedly, the competent authority after perusing the entire record of the petitioner thought it fit not to retain him in service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
16. ' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and leave refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.