1988 PLC(CS) 85

MIAN FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER).-- The appellants, Muhammad Akram and Walayat Ali, ex-Constables have filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned order dated 5-5-1985 passed by Superintendent of Police, City Division, Lahore vide which both were dismissed from service and the impugned order dated 19-10-1,985 vide which their departmental appeals were rejected. The appellants have impleaded the Superintendent of Police, City Division, Lahore, D.I.-G. Police, Lahore Range and I.G.Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents Nos.l, 2 and 3 respectively.

2. Through this appeal, the appellants have prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside and the appellants be reinstated in service.

3. This judgments would dispose off both the appeals because the facts of the case, the impugned orders as well as the respondents are identical.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants, Muhammad Akram and Walayat Ali, ex-Constables were issued the following show cause notice by the Superintendent of Police:-

"One Abdul Wahad s/o Rahat Caste Pathan No Jahangir District Peshawar vide case FIR No.86, dated 13-2-85 a/s 382, PPC P.S. Nawankot, Lahore reported that he is dealer in chips stone. He had to realise Rs.13,900 from Saeed & Sons, Multan Road, Lahore opposite to National Bank. On 12-2-85 he approached him and received Rs.10,000. Thereafter, he left for Lucky Building Material Store and asked its owner Malik Mashook to pay him his amount of Rs.13,500 outstanding against him. Yar Muhammad s/o Ghulam Hyder was also with him (complainant). Mashook made them sit in his shop and himself went outside. A few minutes later two men riding on motorcycle appeared at the shop. They introduced themselves as Akram SP and Walayat Constables of Police Station Nawankot. Malik Mashook had also come. Akram took out a pistol and asked him that he was a smuggler. He asked Malik Mashook to clarify his position that he was not a smuggler but the former acted as mere spectator only. He then out of fear made him (Akram Constable) over the amount of Rs .10, 000. Walayat constable searched person of his companion Yar Muhammad and deprived him of Rs.400. They then left the place on the motorcycle.

Both the defaulters were placed under suspension on this account.

This amounts to gross misconduct as defined in Rule 3(a) and (b) of Punjab Police (E & D) Rules, 1975 and calls for disciplinary action under the provision of Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 which may include imposition of one or more of the major penalties as defined in sub-rule (4) of the said rule."

The appellants pleaded not guilty in their written statements. The Superintendent of Police after granting the opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants dismissed them from service vide order dated 5-5-1985. Aggrieved by this order the appellants filed departmental appeals which were rejected vide order dated 19-10-1985 by D.I.-G. Police, Lahore Range. Subsequently both the appellants filed a petition before the I. G. Police and after expiry of 90 days and without decision of the same the appellants lodged the instant appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal.

5. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants were involved in a criminal case but were acquitted. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the case 1986 P L C (C.S) 840. The learned counsel for the appellants added that no regular departmental enquiry was conducted against the appellants and as such the appellants could not be dismissed from the service by conducting summary (general) proceedings under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 because the allegations against the appellants were regarding extortion by force the money from Abdul Wahad, complainant. The learned counsel for the appellants closed his arguments while stating that since a criminal case under section 382, PPC was registered on FIR by Abdul Wahad, complainant at Police Station, Nawan Kot, Lahore, the Superintendent of Police in capacity of competent authority should have either awaited the result of the trial Court or conducted a parallel regular enquiry. However, the Superintendent of Police did not do so with the result that the accused were acquitted by the trial Magistrate and no reliance could be attached to summary proceedings.

6. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeals and stated that the complainant had no enmity against the appellants and believing the allegations of the complainant and result of investigation of the criminal case the Superintendent of Police was justified to dismiss the appellants and likewise the D. I. G. was justified to reject the departmental appeals.

7. We have carefully considered the points so raised by both the parties. We have also consulted the relevant record including the written objections submitted by the respondents. Indeed the departmental proceedings were conducted case u/s 382, PPC on the complaint of Abdul Waheed at Police Station, Nawan kot , Lahore. We are of the considered opinion that there were two options for the Superintendent of Police i.e. either to wait the result of the criminal case so that on the conviction of the appellants they could be proceeded under Rule 9 of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975 or in the alternative it is settled law in such cases as well as our consistent decisions that the Superintendent of Police should have conducted a regular enquiry so that the appellants could contest the same by cross-examination of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses as well as producing their own defence witnesses which is not the case. The acquittal of the appellants by the competent Court would obviously bear a judicious finding compared to summary proceedings conducted by the Superintendent of Police.

8. Hence the appeal is accepted. The appellants to be reinstated to clothe them the status of civil servants. The period of their absence should also be determined by the authority. The Authority (Superintendent of Police) is at liberty to proceed against the appellants.

A.E/70-Sr.P Appeals accepted.