JUDGMENT CH. MUHAMMAD SARWAR, MEMBER-I.-- Briefly stated the facts leading to the appeal are that in the year 1997, the appellant was posted as Sub-inspector/SHO, Police Station, Township,;'Lahore. On 6.10.1997, there . Was dacoity. On receiving the information, the appellant alongwith his staff reached the place of occurrence. There was exchange of fire. Wasif, dacoit s/o Abdul Sattar died during the firing. Case FIR No, 327/1997, dated 6.10.1997 u/Ss. J24/353, 148/149, 13/20/65, PPC, P.S. Township, * Lahore was registered.
2. Atif Sattar s/o Abdul Sattar, brother of Wasif AN lodged complaint that the appellant lias arrested, tortured and murdered his brother. The case FIR No. 216/1999 u/Ss. 302/365, 148/149, PPC, P.S. Township, Lahore was registered and the appellant was arrested. He was released on bail on'2.1.2001.3. In the meantime, proceedings under Punjab Police (E&D), Rules, 1975 were initiated against the appellant and the appellant was issued show-cause notice. The appellant failed to submit reply to the show-cause notice because he was confined in jail. The appellant was awarded the major punishment of dismissal from service vide impugned orders dated 21.9.2000.
He referred departmental appeal after he was released from jail but it was rejected on 21.3.2001.
The revision petition was also rejected on 4.9.2001. Hence this appeal.
4. . I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Departmental Representative and have perused the record and objections to the memorandum of appeal submitted by the respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has not killed Wasif All but the appellant was performing his duty and was trying to prevent escape of the culprits. Wasif Ali was injured and he died later on. Learned counsel for the appellant furdier argued that the appellant was arrested by the police and that he was released on bail. He came to know that he has been dismissed from service. He preferred departmental appeal but it was dismissed without conducting regular inquiry and without affording the appellant opportunity to produce his defence.
6. Learned counsel for tl?e appellant further argued that case FIR No. 216/1999, u/Ss.
302/365/148/149, PPC, P.S. Township is pending and has not been decided so far.
7. The respondents in their objections to the memorandum of appeal have stated that case FIR No. 216/1999, u/Ss. 302/365, 148/149, RPC, P.S. Township, Lahore was'registered against the appellant. He was served with a show-cause notice on 11.10.1999 but-he did not Submit his reply and he was dismissed from service.
7. It was held in 1993 $CMR 603 that for resolving controversial questions of fact proper course would be to hold inquiry where the evidence have to be recorded and opportunity of cross- examination has to be provided. Otherwise findings recorded would be based more on conjectures than on evidence, it was held in PL] 1997 SC 1953 that removal or dismissal from service of civil servant on the basis of summary inquiry is not sustainable in law. Inspector-General of Police vide letter No. 2856-2898/P-I, dated 2.10.1996 directed ail the Deputy Inspectors-General of Police, Punjab and all Superintendents of Police, Punjab that regular inquiry must be conducted before awarding major punishment. The appellant was awarded major punishment without conducting regular inquiry. The appeal is, therefore, accepted. Impugned orders dated 21.9.2000, 21.3.2001 and 4.9.2001 are set aside. Appellant is reinstated in service. De novo proceedings are ordered. Regular inquiry should be conducted against the appellant. He should be afforded reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the inquiry witnesses and to produce his defence. The pay of the intervening period shall be decided by the Authority alongwith departmental proceedings. There will be no order as to the costs.