' Through this single judgment, the above mentioned appeals are being decided as common question of law and facts are involved in them.
2. Allegation against the appellants is that on 28.05.2011. They have captured 3 persons namely Farasat Ali, Shahid Mehmood and Zeeshan Arif and kept them in illegal custody in a private hotel.
Later on they were brought to Kashmir and demanded Rs. 7,00,000/- from them as "Ransom" for their release. It is also alleged that the appellants received Rs. 3,00,000/- and released the said abductees. On the application of complainant, a case vide FIR No. 436 dated 30.5.2011 u/S. 365, PPC was registered at Police Station Waris Khan District Rawalpindi. The Superintendent of Police Headquarter Rawalpindi, issued show-cause notices Bearing. No. 584/PA dated 18.06.2011 to Constable Asif Qadeer, show-cause notice Bearing No. 586/PA dated 18.06.2011 to Constable Wasee Ullah and show-cause notice Bearing No. 587/PA dated 18.06.2011 to Constable Waseem Asghar.
3. Pursuant to show-cause notices mentioned above, the CPO Rawalpindi vide order dated 30.07.2011, dismissed all the above mentioned appellants form their service. Said order was challenged by the appellants by filing appeals which were rejected by the Regional Police Officer Rawalpindi Region on 24.12.2012. Hence these appeals.
4. Learned counsel contends that Superintendent of Police Headquarter was not competent to issue show-cause notices; no regular inquiry was conducted by the competent authority before passing the major punishment of dismissal from service, the appellants were falsely implicated in case FIR No. 436 dated 30.5.2011 and they have been acquitted by the order of the Hon'ble Judge of anti-terrorist Court No. 1 Rawalpindi on 31.01.2012. The appellants produced order of acquittal before the Respondent No. 1 when they appeared before him for personal hearing and Respondent No. 1 summoned the complainant of the said FIR in order to proceed further, the complainant did not appear before the RPO as he was behind the jail in criminal case FIR No. 394 dated 27.09.2011 u/S. 9, CNSA Police StationSadar Attock. The Respondent No. 1 did not keep in his mind the order of acquittal passed by the competent Court of law and unlawfully rejected the departmental appeals. Learned counsel prayed that as the impugned orders are illegally, unlawful and have been passed in violation of the rules set out by the Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan, therefore, the impugned orders can not be sustained, Learned counsel referred 2007 SCMR 192, 2009 PLC (CS)
471, 2013 SCMR 714. It is prayed that appeals be accepted, impugned orders be set aside and the appellants be re instated in service with all back benefits.
5. Conversely Learned' Deputy District Attorney vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned orders, it is contended that appellants had committed heinous offence by abducting three innocent persons for the purpose of Ransom and after getting Rs. 3,00,000/ from the abductees, released them. As the appellants were acquitted u/S. 265-K, Cr.P.C., therefore, they can not take the benefit of the said order announced by ATC-1 on 31.01.2012, as the acquittal was not Honble. Learned Deputy District Attorney further contended that as the appeals are without any force, hence they by dismissed and the impugned orders be up held.
6. Arguments heard, record perused.
7. Record manifest that Superintendent of Police Headquarter Rawalpindi gave independent show- cause notices, the details of which have been mentioned above in Para No 2 as follows:- "that on 28.05.2011, you alongwith 03 other Constables captured 03 persons namely Farast Ali, Shahid Iqbal Mehmood & Zeeshan Arif and kept them in illegal custody in a private, hotel. Later on, you brought them to Kashmir and demanded Rs. 7,00,000/- as ransom to release the abductees.
You received Rs. 3,00,000/ and released the persons. On the application of the complainant 'a case FIR No. 436 dated 30.05.2011 u/S. 365, PPC PS Waris Khan has been registered against you and others. Your such act is quite reprehensive and comes in the ambit of severe misconduct. Being a member of disciplined force, your behavior/act is against the norms of Police Force. Thus you have also been placed under suspension vide OB No. 135 dated 11.06.2011 This amounts to gross misconduct on your part."
8. The appellants submitted their reply to the show-cause notices in which they have controverted the allegations levelled by the Superintendent of Police Headquarter in the show-cause notices.
CPO Rawalpindi after affording personal nearing to the appellants and perusing the relevant paper i.e show-cause notice and written reply to the show-cause notice passed an order of dismissal against the appellants on 30.07.2011. It is an admitted fact that Learned Judge ATC-1 Rawalpindi conducted trial of the appellants in a criminal case FIR No. 436 and vide his order dated 31.01.2012 acquitted the accused facing trial. It is settled law that acquittal of accused in criminal case A even if based on benefit of doubt would be Hon'ble. Reliance is placed on 2007 SCMR 537 titled Superintending Engineer Gepco, Sialkot Vs. Muhammad Yousaf It is also settled law that dismissal of civil servant from service due to pendency of criminal case against him would be bad unless such official was found guilty by the competent Court law and the contents of the FIR would remain unsubstantiated allegation and on the basis of the same maximum penalty could not be imposed.
Reliance is place on 2007 SCMR .192 titled Shakeel Ahmad vs IGP Lahore. The order of acquittal was passed by the Hon'ble judge ATC-1. On 31.01.2012 but the RPO Rawalpindi region while deciding appeals on 24.12.2012 after about eleven months of the said order did not keep in his mind the above mentioned crucial fact of acquittal of the appellants from the said criminal case thus committed material illegality, therefore, his order as well as the original order passed by the CPO are not sustainable. In view of what has been discussed above all the above titled appeal are accepted. Impugned orders are set aside and the appellants are re instated their service with immediate effect along with all back benefits.