MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISLABAD

Muhammad Siddique ex‑Constable No. 199 has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, D. I. G. of Police Sargodha Range, Sargodha, and 1. G of Police, Punjab, Lahore, as res pondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 30th December, 1980, 13th October, 1981 and 5th April, 1983 be set aside and the appellant be re‑instated in service from 31st Decem ber, 1980, with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a show‑cause notice. The details of which are given in Annexure 'C'. The allegations against the appellant are that while posted on traffic duty at Police Station Kamalia on 30th November, 1980, he took into possession registration book No. 8626‑LEX for traffic violation and challaned Khalid Mahmud owner of the Wagon directing him to appear in the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Toba Tek Singh, on 9th November, 1980. On 9th November, 1980 Basbir Ahmad, father of Khalid Mahmud attended the Court but the said challan was not sent to the Court, so he went to the appellant who demanded Rs. 150 for letting of the challan and returning the registration book. It is also alleged that he was paid Rs.

150. The numbers of the currency notes were noted down and the registration book was returned. The complainant went to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who formed a raiding party with Ch. Talib Hussain, Magistrate 1st Class, Toba Tek Singh. The appellant was arrested and tainted money was recovered from one Riaz Ahmad alias Raja and thereafter F.

1. R. No. 312, dated 9th November, 1980 was registered against the appellant under section 161, P. P. C. and 5th February, 1947 P. C. A. at Police Station, Kamalia. The appellant was challaned. The appellant submitted, the reply to the show‑cause notice; as per Annexure `D'. The reply given to the show‑cause notice was considered by the respondent No. 1, which was found unsatisfactory and the appellant was compulsory retired from service on 21st December, 1980 vide his order, dated 30th December, 1980. The appellant made an appeal to the D. I. G. Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha who enhanced the punishment of compulsory retire ment to that of dismissal w. e. f. 21st December, 1980, vide his order, dated 13th October, 1981. The appellant made a revision/mercy petition to I. G. Police, Punjab, Lahore which was considered and filed vide his order, dated 5th April, 1983. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was retired compulsorily by respondent No.1 as he was found guilty of corruption. No regular inquiry was held to find out the truth in this case and the appellant was punished on the basis of a show‑cause notice only. Similarly respondent No. 2, while deciding the appeal has held the appellant guilty of corrup tion and has enhanced the punishment to that of dismissal instead of compulsory retirement. These punishments were awarded by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on the basis that the appellant was involved in a corruption case and F. I. R. No. 312, dated 9th November, 1980, under section 161. P. P. C. and 5th February, 1947 P. C. A. was registered against the appel lant and he was challaned. It has been further pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the basis on which the appellant was punished has fallen to the ground by the acquittal of the appellant by the Court of competent jurisdiction vide order, dated 24th April, 1982 of Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha Division, Sargodha which still holds the field. Concluding his arguments the appellant's counsel has submitted that in view of above judgment, the impugned orders of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are, unjustified, unlawful and these be quashed.

5. Controverting the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant the learned District Attorney has relied upon the para-wise com ments submitted by the respondent No. 1 and also the details mentioned in the impugned orders of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. It has been submitted by him that the appellant has been involved in a serious corruption case. He was also challaned for the same. The appellant is guilty of gross mis conduct and the impugned orders of the respondents are well‑considered, valid and lawful orders.

6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have consulted the record of this case very carefully. This is a simila case involving the similar facts and point of law as decided earlier by this Tribunal in case of Aziz‑ur‑Rehman Khan v. D. I.-G. Police, Lahore others Appeal No. 729/763 of 1980 announced on 8th July, 1981. The operative portion of the judgment is reproduced below :‑

"In view of the facts that the basis on which the appellant was dis missed from service has fallen to the ground by the detailed and =well‑reasoned judgment of the Court of competent jurisdiction, which still holds the field, and in the absence of a regular enquiry which was a must in this case, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The result is that we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order as being of no legal effect and direct that the appellant be re‑instated in service from the date of his suspension in the office he was holding at the relevant time, as if he bad not been removed from the service at all, with all the back benefits".

This case is at all fours with the above judgment of this Tribunal. No regular enquiry was held in this case and the basis on which the appellant was dismissed has fallen on ground, on the acquittal of the appellant by the judgment of the Court of competent jurisdiction i.e. Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, dated 24th April, 1982 which still holds the field. 1n view of this, the impugned orders cannot be sustained.

7. The result is that the appeal is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside as being of no legal effect and direct that the appellant be re‑instated in service from the date of his dismissal i.e. 21st December, 1980, as if he had not been dismissed from service at all, with all back benefits.

There will be no order as to costs.

M. Y. M. Petition accepted.