NASEER AHMAD vs DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE,

MIAN FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER).----Naseer Ahmad, Ex-Head Constable of Sheikhupura District has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the order, dated.

10-4-1983 of the Superintendent of Police, Sheikhupura (respondent No.2), vide which the appellant was dismissed from the service and the order, dated20-8-1985 of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore Range (respondent No.1), vide which as a result of departmental appeal the penalty was converted into compulsory retirement. The appellant has impleaded the D.I.-G. Police and Superintendent of Police as respondents.

2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 10-4-1983 of the Superintendent of Police and 20-8-1985 of the D.I.-G. Police may be set aside and the appellant be re-instated with back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was issued show-cause notice by the S.P.

Sheikhupura as follows:- "You H.C. Naseer Ahmad No.621 (under suspension) while posted to P.S. Sadar, recovered a felled Sheesham tree from the possession of Chiragh Din Foreman, Irrigation Department, which he allegedly wrongfully cut from Tubewell No. 357 at Mauza Ghullan and threatened legal action.

Waris Ali Operator of the Tubewell approached you to seek favour for Chiragh Din Foreman. You demanded Rs.2,000 as consideration to hush up the matter. The bargain was struck at Rs.1,000.

Accordingly on 9-3-1983, you accepted Rs.1,000 as bribe through Constable Safdar Khan No. 483, who was caught red-handed by the raiding party headed by Rao Tahseen Ahmad Tahseen, M.I.C.

Sheikhupura, for which case F.I.R. No. 5, dated 9-3-1983 under sections 161, P.P.C. And 5(2)47 P.C.A.

P.S. A.C.E., Sheikhupura was registered."

The appellant pleaded not guilty in his written statement. The appellant was also granted opportunity of personal hearing on 9-4-1983 for explaining his position. The appellant stated before the Superintendent of Police that he wanted to arrest Khadim Hussain, proclaimed offender and he inquired about his whereabouts from Chiragh Din. Since Shabbir son of Chiragh Din was friend of Khadim Hussain, P.O, therefore, Chiragh Din got the false inquiry conducted against the appellant and he knew nothing about the recovery of the bribed money from Constable Muhammad Safdar.

The Superintendent of Police after consideration of the facts of the criminal case registered against the appellant as well as the explanation of the appellant dismissed the appellant from the service while considering that the appellant had already earned five punishments. Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed departmental appeal before the D .1.-G . Police who converted the penalty of dismissal intb that of compulsory retirement while disposing of the appeal, vide orders, dated 20- 8-1985. Hence this appeal.

4. At the time of the arguments learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was acquitted by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, vide orders, dated 20-5-1984 and, therefore, the foundation of the departmental punishment by the Superintendent of Police lost any force. The learned counsel for the appellant added that the appellant had told the D.I.-G. Police, Lahore Range, as mentioned in the impugned orders, dated 20-8-1985 of the D.I.-G., Police, regarding his acquittal by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption but even then it was not given proper consideration on the ground that the complainant Waris Ali died during the trial and the acquittal was not honourable. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that no regular inquiry was conducted against the appellant in spite of the fact that in cases of corruption regular inquiry has to be conducted. The learned counsel for the appellant closed the arguments while citing the case 1980 S--- C M R 850 as well as the instructions of the Inspector-General of Police to all the Superintendents of Police communicated, vide his letter No. 4504-40/11-IV, dated 4- 3-1984 for conducting regular inquiry in cases of corruption.

5. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that the appellant had background of five punishments. The learned District Attorney also stressed that the appellant was proceeded under the Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Police (E$D) Rules, 1975 by way of general Police proceedings because facts of the case disclosed in the show-cause notice, dated 14-3-1983 justified the same.

The learned District Attorney closed the arguments and pointed out that the D.I.-G. Police dealt the appellant leniently by conversion of the penalty of the dismissal into that of the compulsory retirement. The departmental appeal was rejected because the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case was due to the death of the complainant whose evidence could not be recorded by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption.

6. We have carefully considered the points so raised by both the parties. We have also consulted the relevant record including the departmental comments. We are of the considered opinion that we have invariably set aside the impugned orders of penalty which were inflicted by the competent authorities on allegations of the corruption but without conducting regular inquiry after charge-sheeting the appellants. This was because the judgment of the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan cited above required a regular inquiry in such cases. Similarly the Inspector-General of Police also issued the directions to all the Superintendents of the Police in view of the said judgment of learned Supreme Court as well as the judgments of the Punjab Service Tribunal.

Accordingly the appeal is accepted and the case is remanded for holding the regular inquiry as the appellant was involved in a corruption case. The appellant to be re-instated in the service to clothe him with the status of a civil servant. The fate of the period for which the appellant remained out of service shall also be decided by the authority after proceeding afresh as mentioned above.

No order for the cost.