MASOOD AHMAD Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SRALKOT
S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN) . -‑Masood Ahmad Ex‑A. S.‑I., has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act of 1974 in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Sialkot, D. I.‑G. Police, Gujranwala Range, and I.‑G. Police, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that impugned orders, dated 22nd December, 1979, 6th August, 1980 and 25th June, 1981 be set aside and appellant be re‑instated in service with all back benefits. He has also prayed for the costs of appeal so filed by him.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 19th September, 1979 P. S.‑I., Abdul Qayyum alongwith Muhammad Siddique and some of his relatives contacted A. S.‑I. Masood Ahmad No. 299/L. H. R. of Police Station Qilla Sobha Singh for the recovery of Msr. Ishrat Mahmood from the house of her father in village Bhodi Mallian on the strength of warrant under section 100, Cr. P. C. issued by R. M. Narowal. The A. S.‑I. proceeded to Village Bhodi Mallian alongwith P. S.‑1. Abdul Qayyum, Muhammad Siddique and his relatives. The A. S.‑I. secured Mst. Ishrat Mahmood and started back to Police Station. When they had covered some distance from the village, one Aman Ullah Khan son of Muhammad Abdullah Khan contacted him and informed that after departure of the Police Party, he alongwith Muhammad Siddique and others also started back in the wagon but the wagon stuck in the mud when, father/relatives of Mst. Ishrat Mahmood turned up armed with sticks/hatchets, assaulted and caused injuries to Muhammad Siddique. The A. S.‑I. alongwith Constables rushed back to the site of occurrence but before he could control the situation Muhammad Siddique who had been' murdered expired. Meanwhile Mst. Ishrat Mahmood also escaped.
4. The A. S.‑I. reported this matter to the competent authority and a charge‑sheet accompanied by a statement of allegation were served on the appellant on 24th September, 1979. He submitted reply to the same on 2nd October, 1979. The competent authority after taking into consideration his explanation appointed Sheikh Muhammad Amin, D. S. P. Saddar to conduct a regular enquiry under rule 6(4) of the Punjab Police Rules (E & D) Rules. The Enquiry Officer after holding a regular enquiry into the matter submitted that appellant was found guilty. The competent authority after receiving the verdict of enquiry issued a show‑cause notice to the appellant on 29th November, 1979. The appellant filed his explanation and was heard in person by the competent authority who found that the appellant had no case on merits and compulsorily retired from service by the order, dated 22nd December, 1979. The appellant filed an appeal with the D. I.‑G. Police which was dismissed. The appellant aggrieved against the D. L.G. Police filed a review‑cum‑mercy petition to the I.‑G. P. which was also rejected. Hence this appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was not guilty of any violation of Standing Order, No. 5 6th January, 1944 of the I.‑G. P. Punjab. It has been argued that according to rules 14.55 and 22.53 the Police Rules, 1934 Standing Order of I.‑G. P. were valid only for five years and had no force at all unless the same were renewed. It has been further submitted that enquiry report is contradictory to the evidence so produced before him and whimsical. The learned counsel asserted that the evidence on the record indicated the stand of the Enquiry Officer as fallacious, therefore, the same should not have been relied upon by the competent authority. He has also made grievance that the appellant was not provided with the copy of the enquiry report which was a must in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that the Standing Order are of two kinds ; one which are permanent and have permanent affect and the others which are temporary in nature. It has been argued by him that the Standing Order in the present case which has been violated was of permanent nature, therefore, the appellant cannot take shelter under the plea so advanced by him. It has been vehemently contend ed by the learned District Attorney that the contents of the enquiry report fully proved that the appellant took Muhammad Siddique deceased with him in the wagon, and therefore, he cannot escape the act of negligence and carelessness amounting to defiance of order which resulted in the death of innocent person.
7. With regard to the non‑supply of the enquiry report at the time of hearing the appellant by the competent authority it has been submitted that the same was necessary only under Civil Servants Rules and not under the Police E & D Rules,
8. We have given our anxious thought to the 'arguments so raised before us and have carefully read the enquiry report as to see whether the allegations made by the authorities are how far substantiated.
9. We find that the statement of the D. W. 5 whom the appellant produced in his own defence contradict his stand that Muhammad Siddique was not accompanied by him. Aman Ullah Khan D. W. 6 and Muhammad Siddique D. W. 7 and Muhammad Hussain D. W. 8 and Pervaiz Haider D. W. P, have categorically stated that Muhammad Siddique was present with the A. S.‑I. when he started for this venture. While looking into the F. I. R. which was recorded by the appellant himself at the instance of Aman Ullah Khan D. W. it is mentioned there that the informer along with the few others inclusive Muhammad Siddique proceeded alongwith the appellant to the place of occurrence for execution of warrants under section 100 of Cr. P. C. issued by the R. M. for recovery of Mst. Ishrat Mahmood. With this evidence on record we are of the considered opinion that the verdict of the Enquiry Officer was fully justified and the competent officer had ample reasons to hold that Muhammad Siddique deceased was with the appellant for the purpose of recovery of Mst. Ishrat Mahmood.
10, It is also an established fact that the A. S.‑I. was working under the S. H. O., therefore, he was required to put up the warrant before him so as to get necessary order from him for execution If the A. S.‑1. would have been working as an independent officer the matter would have been different but in the present case he cannot by any measure be excused for not seeking endorsement of the warrant in his name from his superior:
11. With regard to the impact of the standing order which the appellant has violated it is sufficient to say that the contents of the same require that nobody who was interested in the execution of the warrant should be allowed to accompany a Police Officer in such matters. This Standing Order No. 5 has a logic behind it as in such sensitive matters when an interesting party makes its appearance at the scene of occurrence the opposite party is likely to act violently. To avoid such situation it was laid down once for all through this Standing Order that no police officer would violate the same as such like violations end into disastrous results. We are satisfied that rule 14.55(2) declared this standing order as an order of permanent character affecting the duties, procedure and practice of the police. In view of above analysis of the impact of the Standing Order No. 5 we are of the confirmed view that the appellant has violated the same and was responsible for the unfortunate instance which occurred during the course of recovery of Mst. Ishrat Mahmood.
12. We have no hesitation to repel the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the copy of the enquiry report had to be provided to the appellant in accordance with the law laid down in Mr: Mir Muhammad v. Government of N.‑W. F. P. (P L D 1981 S C). The impact of the above ruling only applies of the cases of the civil servants and not to the cases of Police Officers who are proceeded under separate set oil rules.
13. We have also carefully examined the impugned judgment as well as the order under appeal and review and found that these orders are passed on cogent reasons and are fully justified keeping in view the conduct of the appellant.
14. The result is we dismiss the appeal as being without any merits. However, the parties will bear their own costs.
A. E. Appeal dismissed.