PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Home Department, Lahore and others vs Malik MUKHTAR AHMAD (Retd.) A.S.I

ORDER

1. ' NAIMUDDIN, J.--Province of Punjab, the petitioners by this petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution seek leave to appeal from the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 30th November, 1981, whereby it accepted the appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act of 1974, against the orders dated 9th September, 1979, 18th June, 1980 and 17th January, 1981, passed by Superintendent Police, Attock, DI-G., Rawalpindi Range and I.-G. Police, Punjab, Lahore respectively and directed reinstatement of the respondent in the service so that he should have a status of civil servant and amenable to Efficiency and Discipline Rules for the purpose of facing regular enquiry under Rule 6(4) thereof afresh.

2. ' The reason that prevailed for ordering as above was that Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad, Superintendent Police, Attock, who had recovered Rs,2,000 from the respondent which amount was allegedly extorted by the respondent from various truck drivers as illegal gratification had issued show- cause notice containing six charges and heard him personally and dismissed him from service invoking Rule 6(3) of Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Thus, it was observed by the Tribunal that he had violated the principle of natural justice as he himself was the most important witness, prosecutor, and judge.

3. ' In the case of Muhammad Mohsin Siddiqi v. Government of West Pakistan (PLD 1964 SC 64), this Court observed as follows:- "The whole proceeding in a departmental enquiry is required by the Rules to be conducted in accordance with the principles of justice. The superior Courts will not tolerate, and certainly not within the frame-work of the judicial administration itself, conditions in which officials can be made prosecutors; judges and punishing authorities when they themselves are the complainants, merely on the ground that the power of removal is vested in them as appointing authorities under the Rules."

4. It was, however, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case was considered by the two appellate authorities and the defect was cured but the consideration by them would not cure the jurisdictional defect in the order passed by the biased Superintendent Police.

5. ' This contention was also considered in the above-cited case and it was observed by Cornelius, C.

6. J. (as he then was) who wrote the opinion of the Court that "the effect will be that all consequential proceedings will be rendered void and of no effect".

7. ' Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is unexceptionable. Accordingly leave is refused.