' QALANDAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--- This single order shall also dispose of Appeal No,164 of 2009 Azhar Iqbal v. DIG of Police Hazara Range, Abbottabad etc. As common questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals.
2. The appellant in this case, Amir Shakoor, and appellant in the connected appeal, namely, Azhar lqbal were both Constables in the Hazara Police at Abbottabad as they both had joined the police in the year 2002. They both were posted in Traffic Police Abbottabad when they were charged for chasing a couple from Adda Gami in plain clothes while posing themselves as CIA staff members and forcing them to pay Rs,30,000 near Ayub Medical Complex but eventually snatching Rs,11500 from them for their release. It is alleged that the matter was reported to Inspector CIA who arrested both the appellants and the amount was recovered from their possession. They both were served with charge sheet and statement of allegations and Mian Khurshid Anwar, DSP legal, was appointed as Inquiry Officer. They replied to the charge-sheet and statement of allegations and the Inquiry Officer conducted inquiry proceedings. On the conclusion of the inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer recommended imposition of major penalty/punishment. On the acceptance of the inquiry report, the Authority i.e, the District Police Officer Abbottabad (respondent No,2) awarded major penalty of dismissal from service vide separate, orders dated 21-10-2008, against which the appellants preferred their representations on 11-11-2008, which were filed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hazara Region, Abbottabad (respondent No,1) vide memo. Dated 17-1- 2009; hence these appeals, inter alia, on the grounds that they were innocent and were involved in the case at the behest of one Shoaib; that the penalty awarded was too harsh; that the appellants were not given ample time for their defence; that no disinterested witness was examined against the appellants; and that the entire inquiry proceedings were based on mala fide and biased motives.
3. The respondents resisted the appeals by filing their written replies wherein they refuted the contentions of the appellants, besides alleging that the service record of the appellants did not speak well and that the D.I.-G. Hazara filed the departmental appeals of the appellants after considering the case and comments of the DPO Abbottabad. The respondents also contended that Shoaib was complainant in the case and that the appellants were arrested after proper identification by the complainant and also recovery of the amount taken forcibly by them from the complainant. They further contended that proper opportunity of cross-examination and defence was given to the appellants but they themselves opted not to cross-examine the witnesses.
4. The appellants also filed rejoinders to the written replies of the respondents, wherein, they reiterated their contentions in the appeals and again prayed for their reinstatement with back benefits.
5. Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.A.-G. Heard and record perused.
6. The main allegation against both the appellants, which also resulted in their dismissal from service after departmental inquiry, is that they forcibly snatched Rs,11500 from Shoaib complainant and his female companion in the premises of Ayub Medical Complex while in plain clothes and posing themselves as CIA staff members. The occurrence allegedly took place on 21-9-2008 and on the following day of the occurrence i.e, 22-9-2008 the said Shoaib, complainant, moved a complaint to the Incharge CIA Abbottabad narrating therein the whole episode and charging three unknown persons whom he could recognize if they were brought before him. Acting on the complaint, Asif Gohar Inspector CIA Abbottabad first ensured identification of the appellants and when they both were identified by the complainant, they were proceeded against departmentally and on the basis of findings of the, Inquiry Officer, they both were dismissed from service by the Authority.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, was that both the appellants have been framed in the case at the behest of complainant Shoaib who nursed grudge and against them. However, nothing was pointed out on record to support this contention. Had there been previous acquaintance between the parties, the complainant would have charged the appellants by name instead of charging three unknown persons. The learned counsel for the appellants also objected to sparing and not involving the third person mentioned in the complaint, but it has been brought on record in the statement of Asif Gohar Inspector CIA Abbottabad, without any objection by the appellants, that the third person was a friend of Azhar Iqbal appellant. The learned counsel for the appellants has also objected to non-production of lady accompanying the complainant at the time of occurrence; but in view of the un-rebutted statement of the complainant, who was not subjected to cross-examination by the appellants, supported by the statements of Asif Gohar Inspector CIA and Constable Shehzad CIA Abbottabad, there was hardly any need to also get examined the lady.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants next contended that the inquiry proceedings were not conducted in accordance with law/rules as the appellants were not provided ample opportunity of cross-examination and defence. But the record speaks otherwise as both the appellants were provided opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses including the complainant but they did not avail that opportunity and stated before the Inquiry Officer that they did not want to cross-examine the witnesses. Their statements also bear signatures, which have not been denied by the appellants. In the absence of cross-examination, statements against them will be presumed to have been accepted by them.
9. In their replies to the charge-sheet, statement of allegations and show-cause notice as well as in their appeals, the appellants have denied the occurrence, but in the written statements signed by the appellants, they have admitted the occurrence sans taking money forcibly from the complainant. The learned counsel for the appellants also raised questions with regard to identification of the appellants, but that objection would lose force when seen in the light of un- rebutted statements' of the witnesses and also in view of the signed statements of the appellants.
Like-wise, the allegation of on the part of the complainant would lose significance when seen in the light of the fact that besides complainant, CIA staff as well as local police authorities got involved in proceedings against the appellants, against whom there could possibly be no allegation of bias and ill will.
10. In short, all the necessary requirements under the law/rules have been met in the case of the appellants. They both were properly charge sheeted and statements of allegations were served on them on the basis of complaint against them, inquiry was conducted during which statements of not only complainant but also Inspector CIA and Constable CIA were recorded, they were provided opportunity of cross-examination on the witnesses which they did not avail, and the impugned order was passed after service of final show-cause notice on them; thus revealing no infirmity or illegality. Had there been any miscarriage of justice in the departmental proceedings, we certainly would have taken into consideration the short order of the Appellate Authority, but in view of overwhelming evidence against the appellants, we have no hesitation to observe that the departmental appeals were properly considered and filed by the Appellate Authority. In any case, the serious allegation of harassing citizens and forcibly taken away money from them by blackmailing them against personnel in uniform, who are under obligation to protect honour and dignity of the citizens, cannot be countenanced on any ground whatsoever.
11. As a result, both the appeals are dismissed with costs.