Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was served with a show cause notice dated 05.12.2006 on the charge that he pressurized Mr. Muhammad Rafique, Moharrar No, 10789/C for lodging case FIR No, 534 dated 10.07.2005. The appellant submitted reply to show cause notice, whereby he specifically refuted the allegations. An inquiry was conducted into the matter and as per recommendations of the inquiry officer, the appellant was awarded major penalty of reduction in rank vide impugned order dated 18.01.2006. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed departmental appeal, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 28.09.2008. Hence, the present appeal.
2. The counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned order dated 18.01.2006 was passed by incompetent authority as well as no regular inquiry was conducted. He further argued that appellant was dealt with discriminatory. He stated that the appellant being Sub-Inspector and Mr. Muhammad Rafique, being Moharrar No, 10789/C were proceeded against on the allegation that Muhammad Rafique Moharrar No, 10789/C lodged an FIR No, 534 dated 10.07.2005 by affixing bogus signatures of S.I Muhammad Sultan, whereas, the appellant was proceeded against on the charge that he pressurized Moharrir to lodge FIR No, 435 dated 10.07.2005 by affixing bogus signatures of SI Muhammad Sultan. After probing the matter, the appellant was awarded major penalty of reduction in rank, keeping aside the fact that the appellant refuted the allegations in reply to show cause notice and there was no evidence that the appellant pressurized Mr. Muhammad Rafique, Moharrir, whereas, Mr. Muhammad Rafique Moharrar No, 10789/C who lodged FIR under the bogus signatures of S.I Muhammad Sultan, has been awarded minor penalty of withholding of increment for one year vide Order No, 188-90 dated 20.01.2006, as such discriminatory treatment was given to the appellant, which is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.
3. The learned District Attorney and the departmental representative opposed the contentions of the appellant by relying on parawise comments submitted by them.
4. Arguments of the parties heard and available record gone through.
5. The record Reveals that a detailed inquiry was conducted into the matter and after fulfilling all the codal formalities the appellant was awarded penalty of reduction in rank and Mr. Muhammad Rafique, Moharrar was awarded minor penalty of stoppage of increment vide Order No, 188-90 dated 20.01.2006. The appellant was performing his duty as Acting SHO at Police Station Hanjarwal, when the occurrence took place. Being SHO, if the appellant had performed his duties vigilantly, and kept strict supervision, then the Moharrir could have not lodge the FIR under bogus signatures of SI Sultan. The inquiry report shows that the appellant intentionally did not approach the legal heirs of the deceased for ulterior motive. I found no illegality or deficiency in the Inquiry proceedings conducted by the inquiry officer. However it seems to be un-natural, that a person who actually committed offence of affixing bogus signatures of Sub-Inspector Muhammad Sultan was given minor penalty, whereas who pressurized Moharrir was awarded major penalty of reduction in rank.
6. In view of above discussions, and taking lenient view, I modify the impugned orders by way of converting the penalty of reduction in rank into withholding of increment for one year. With this observation, the appeal is disposed of.