Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2007 P L C (C.S.) 606

[Punjab Service Tribunal]

Before Azad Muhammad Awan, Member-III

INSPECTOR MUHAMMAD ASLAM

Versus

INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE PUNJAB, LAHORE and another

Appeal No.2230 of 2005, decided on 19th January, 2006.

Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975---

----R. 4---Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4---Withholding of increment for one year---Appeal against---Allegation against appellant, who was a police official, was that he, in a criminal case, arrested accused and recovered stolen articles., but later on he in connivance with accused twisted the facts and submitted cancellation report---Appellant was served with show-cause notice to which he submitted reply, but same did not find favour with the Authority and penalty of withholding of increment for one year was imposed upon appellant---Record had revealed that accused was not arrested by appellant and no recovery of stolen wire was effected from him---Prosecution witnesses having not supported the prosecution case, appellant submitted a report for cancellation---Cancellation report was forwarded on merits and charges levelled against appellant were baseless and orders of Authority and also order of Appellate Authority against appellant was erroneous---Impugned orders passed by Authorities against appellant, were set aside, in circumstances.

Syed Nasir Hussain Shah for Appellant.

Malik Muhammad Ashraf, District Attorney, Zahoor Nadeem, Inspector Legal and Amjad Farooq, Assistant Representatives for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 19th January, 2006.

JUDGMENT

AZAD MUHAMMAD AWAN (MEMBER-III).---Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant was served with a show-cause notice No.309/PA dated 21-3-2003 with the allegations that in case F.I.R. No.82 dated 25-2-1999 in offence under sections 409/411, P.P.C. read with section 5/2/46 Prevention of Corruption Act and section 39-A of Electricity Act, the appellant had arrested Jahangir son of Zahoor Ahmed and recovered the stolen wire vide case Diary No.7. However, later on in connivance with the accused he twisted the facts and submitted a cancellation report. The cancellation report was submitted to the prosecution wing who pointed out that the cancellation report was not based on merits. Resultantly the matter was entrusted to investigate to the Additional S.P. The appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice which did not find favour with the authority who imposed the punishment of withholding of increment for one year against the appellant vide order, dated 19-1-2004. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed an appeal before the Inspector-General of Police which was dismissed vide short order that the explanation of the appellant was not satisfactory and the appeal was rejected and no merits of the case were discussed. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has filed the present appeal.

2. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, District Attorney and have gone through the record which was brought by Zahoor Nadeem Inspector Legal.

3. The record brought by the said Inspector Legal revealed that accused Jahangir was not arrested by the appellant, no recovery of stolen wire was effected from him as per case Diary No.7. Copy of the case Diary No.7 has been placed on record. Since P.Ws. have not supported the prosecution case; vide case Diary No.21, the appellant submitted a report for cancellation. As stated earlier the matter was entrusted to the Additional S.P. who had ordered that challan be submitted in the Court vide case Diary No.24. I have asked the Inspector Legal to place the copy of the case diary on record. Perusal of said case diary showed that witnesses examined by the Additional S.P. had not supported the case of prosecution. The counsel for the appellant maintained that in his own wisdom the Additional S.P. came to the conclusion that the accused and the P.Ws. were WAPDA employees. Since Arshad and Abdul Jabbar were labour employees therefore, under pressure of the labour union the P.Ws. have not supported the prosecution case. The counsel for the appellant maintained that one fails to understand as to on what basis the Additional S.P. came to the conclusion that the challan be submitted to the Court. The counsel for the appellant referred to other aspect that despite the above said case diaries of the Additional S.P. dated 10-10-2001 the challan has not been submitted even after a period of 4/5 years. I do not know the authority and the appellate authority would examine this aspect. The cancellation report was forwarded on merits and the charges levelled against the appellant were baseless. The orders of the authority and the appellate authority were erroneous. The District Attorney has not been able to submit arguments- in support of the orders of the authority as also 'of the order of the appellate authority. Resultantly I accept the present appeal and set aside the orders of the authority as also of the appellate authority.

H.B.T./8/PST Appeal accepted.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant