PLJ 2011 Tr.C.
(Services) 12
[
Present:
Fakhar Hayat, Member-IV
TAHIR MEHMOOD ALI, EX-CONSTABLE NO. 1615/C-I, DISTRICT
versus
CITY
POLICE OFFICER,
Appeal
No. 2841 of 2008, decided on 17.2.2009.
----Scope--Acquittal
from criminal cases--Vague and unspecific allegations--Departmental proceedings
against civil servant on various charges including involvement in criminal
cases--Fact findings inquiry--Legality--Although show-cause notice finds
mention of regular inquiry but it appears to be fact finding inquiry--No
punishment can be given on the basis of fact finding inquiry--Appellant had
been acquitted in two cases and third one had been cancelled--Penalty based on
such allegations was set aside with service--Appellant was re-instated. [P. 14] A
Mr.
Asif Nazir Awan, Advocate for Appellant.
Robin
Inayat Bhatti, DDA, Javed Iqbal, Inspector Legal, DR Naveed ur Rehman
Constable D.R. for Respondents.
Date
of hearing: 4.1.2009.
Judgment
The
appellant while posted as Constable at Police Post Kangniwala,
PS Sabzi Mandi, Gujranwala was departmentally proceeded against vide
show-cause notice dated 7.8.2008 on the following allegations:--
"You
while posted at PR Kangniwala, P.S Sabzi Mandi, were placed under
suspension and issued charge sheet vide this Office Order No. 467-69/PA dated
30.5.2008, on the following allegations:-
(i) Muhammad Tariq s/o Karamat All caste Gujjar r/o Hashmi Colony, Gujranwala alongwith other respectables of the area filed a joint application that you
Constable Tahir Mahmood No.
1615/CI posted as Moharrir PP Kangniwala,
are man of bad character who are not only indulged in corruption but also in
the habits of committing offences like zina, theft, dacoity and robberies etc. It was further alleged that you
have developed illicit relations with Mst. Rukhsana Bibi alias Rukhsana Choorianwali r/o Shehbaz Colony, for the last 10/15 years as well as with Sidra Bibi of the Mohallah. They also mentioned about registration of 3 cases
of dacoity etc against you.
(ii) Inspector Rana
Riaz Ahmad, Reader CPO,
(a) Three case FIRs
No. 596 dated 25.9.2003 u/S. 392 PPC PS Sabzi Mandi, containing charges of snatching of
Rs. 700, FIR No. 597 dated 25.9.2003 u/S. 392 PPC PS Sabzi Mandi, containing charges
of snatching of
Rs. 290/- and FIR No. 68 dated 25.2.2006 u/S. 393 PPC
P.S Sadar Kamoki, were
registered against you (defaulter Constable Tahir Mahmood). In in the first two
cases you were challaned whereas the third case was
cancelled.
(b) Despite remaining out of service on the
charges of involvement in criminal activities from 7.10.2003 to 11.6.2004, you
did not improve your attitude and conduct and again involved yourself in
criminal case FIR No. 68 dated 25.2.2006 u/S. 393 PPC PS Sadar
Kamoki, which is vivid proof of your involvement in
criminal activities.
(c) You enjoyed stinking reputation and
brought bad name for the police department.
(d) You lowered the image of police service
in the eyes of general public.
(e) You failed to perform your official
duties with efficiency and alacrity as per provisions of Police Order, 2002.
(f) A regular departmental inquiry to
inquire into the above mentioned allegations was conducted by Rai Baar Saeed,
SP Civil Lines Division, Gujranwala, under PEEDA,
The above resume shows that you are
criminal minded police official. You act amount to inefficiency and gross
misconduct which is prejudicial for the maintenance of good order and
unbecoming of a member of disciplined force like police. As such you are liable
for a strict diplomacy action under the Punjab Employees, Efficiency,
Discipline and" Accountability Act, 2006, which may entail imposition of
one or more of the penalties, including dismissal from service, as envisaged
under Section 4 of the said Act."
The
appellant submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice denying all the
allegations with respect to illicit relations with women of evil repute. As to
registration of Cases No. 596 and 597 of 2003 he pleaded that he had been
acquitted in those cases and later, on the basis of same he was reinstated by
the order of Service Tribunal. As to Case No. 68/2006 his stance was that the
same had been cancelled. After considering reply to the show-cause notice the
Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 3.9.2008 awarded the
punishment of dismissal from service by proceeding under PEEDA Act, 2006. The
appellant submitted departmental representation with the Respondent No. 2 which
was not adverted to within the statutory period whereafter
the instant service appeal was filed.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has
contended that the impugned orders are against law and fact; that no regular
inquiry was conducted and that the
appellant already stood acquitted in two of the criminal cases and the
third case had been cancelled and overall allegations were also in general
nature and without basis.
3. The appeal has been opposed. The Respondent
No. 1 maintained that the appellant was acquitted in criminal cases on the
basis of compromise and cancellation of 3rd criminal case was not denied. It
was maintained that the appellant obtained affidavits of complainant under
coercion. The Respondent No. 2 submitted that the comments and service record
were awaited and as such the appeal be decided on merit.
4. Arguments advanced on behalf of the parties
have been considered and available record gone through.
5. Acquittal of the appellant in two criminal
cases and cancellation of third criminal case is not disputed. It is
astonishing to note that the case FIRs No. 596 and
597 of 2003 of Police Station Sabzi Mandi Gujranwala were also
subject matter of order of previous disciplinary action against the appellant,
entailing dismissal from service which was examined in Service Appeal No.
1399/2004 and this Tribunal vide judgment dated 23.1.2004 ordered the
reinstatement of the appellant. Although show-cause notice finds mention of
regular inquiry but it appears to be a fact finding inquiry as it is mentioned
in the show-cause notice that there was sufficient documentary evidence on
record to prove allegations and that regular inquiry/formal inquiry was not
necessary. No punishment can be given on the basis of fact finding Inquiry.
Basically allegations against the appellant were already subject matter of
service appeal and the appellant was reinstated in service. The appellant was
acquitted in two criminal cases while 3rd case has been cancelled and for other
allegations no formal/regular inquiry was conducted. Therefore, the impugned
order for award of punishment of dismissal from service cannot sustain in the
eye of law.
6. For what has been discussed above, the appeal
of the appellant is accepted and impugned order is set aside. The appellant
shall be reinstated in service while the intervening period shall be treated as
leave of the kind due.
(R.A.) Appeal
accepted.