AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---These Appeals by leave of the Court are directed against: the judgment dated 07.04.2016, of the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi, whereby the Appeals filed by the Respondents were disposed of and the cases were remanded in terms of the observations made in the impugned judgment.
2. The facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of these proceedings are that Criminal Petition No,89-K of 2014, came up for hearing before this Court along with a complaint which was separately numbered as Cr. M. A. No,15-K/15. The Complainant who had filed the Cr. M. A. No,15-K/15 had stated that he had been extended threats by the Respondents as well as by Sub-Inspector, Shaikh Shoaib Ali, and that he apprehends danger to his life besides the lives of his family members at the hands of the Respondents. In light of these allegations, this Court directed the I.G.
Police to produce the service profiles of the Respondents. On perusal of the service profiles, this Court noticed that service books of both the Respondents, Muhammad Ismail Lashari, Inspector (K- 1827) and Muhammad Ishaq Lashari, Sub-Inspector (K-2891) contain patchy service records. The service profiles revealed that both the Respondents were dismissed from service and were awarded several major and minor punishments, most of which they did not even appeal against.
The service profiles of the Respondents pertaining to the punishments awarded by the competent authority are reproduced hereunder: Punishments Awarded to Ex-Inspector MUHAMMAD ISMAIL LASHARI (Respondent in C. A. No,95- K/2016)
Final Order DateReason Punishments Show Cause NoticeAppeal and Decision 1 Final Order No. 532 dated 6-3-1991No record available to reflect reasoningDischarged from service on 19-2- 1991 vide SP District Nawabshah Appeal Against his discharge From service to IGP Sindh.
Reinstated in service without monetary benefits vide order No,3698- 37/ E-II/ASI, dated 7.2.1994 2 Final Order dated 3-6- 2006Dr. Abdul Qayum Rajpar's complaint Regarding high Handedness and harassm ent who was arrested on 7- 7-2003, brought to Karachi on 8-7- 2003Minor Punishment; Stoppage of increment for 2 yearsSSP/ACLC/ SSC/55644 dated 26-10- 2004Nil 3 No. CCPO/ DISCP/ PI 344/ 2007-2636166 dated 19-4- 2007Misused his authority and illegally used car and later sold it at a Lower rate, keeping Rs, 320.000 with him.Major Punishment; Dismissal from Service by defunct CPPO KarachiCCPO/DISCP/ Pi-344/ 2005/72775 dated 18-7- 2005He filed appeal to the appellate Authority i,e, 1GP Sindh Against his dismissal order. Reinstated in Service and Dismissal order was converted Into minor Punishment of stoppage of increment for one year vide order No, 5826- 29/ E- H/ DP dated 19-9-2008 4 No. 2197, dated 7-10- 1990Misbehaved with PSI Ghualm Qadir law instructor.Minor Punishment; Censure Nil 5 No. SP/ KT/ EZ/ DP/ 1315 dated 26-4- 2010Failed to adopt Precaution measures Allowing armed bandits to roam freely withoutMinor Punishment; Stoppage of Increment for one year by SPNo. SP/ KT/ EZ/ DP/ 3695 Dated 18-8- 2009Nil any fear of the police - in the area that he was responsible for.
Also failed to utilize available resources to provide the public with a peaceful environment.Korangi Town (defunct)
6 No. SP/ KT/ El/ EOM/ 1383 dated 26.4.2010Failed to register case when Mr. Murtza reported that His car got stolen from the gate of the company that he Works at by 3 accused persons.
Created undue Advantages for culprit by registering case after 9 daysMinor Punishment; Rs, 1000 to SP Korangi TownSP/ KT/ EZ/ DP/111 dated 12.1.2010Nil 7 No. SP/ KT/ El/ EO.11/ DP/ 1330 dated 26.4.2010On 16-9-2009 FIR No. 771/2009 under section 489-F, P.P.C. was registered on Complaint of Malik M. Ejaz but the same had not been Reported to the SP Korangi Town nor was necessary Permission sought for registering of such case whereas he was duty bound to Inform regarding Such cases and to comply with orders of superior. Failure to do this amounted to grave misconduct.Minor Punishment; Fine of Rs,500 by SP Korangi TownSP/ KT/ EZ/ DP/ 1744 dated 17.9.2009Nil 8 Dated 1.12.2010On 6-1-2010 Muhammad Laiq Reported thatMinor Punishment; Stoppage ofSP/ KT/ EZ/ DP/83 dated 8.1.2010Nil Unknown accused had intercepted him and snatched his car on gun point. Occurrence of such an event showed that he had failed to take precautionary Measures using Available resources, Which resulted in Armed bandits roaming around Freely and the general public being Deprived of a peaceful environment.Increment for one year by SP Korangi Town (defunct)
9 No. SSP/ Malir/ DP/ 4030, dated 16.7.1997After an enquiry following a report, it was found that ASI Ismail Lashari along with four police men took a Rawal S/P Nathoo to Tool Plaza Chowki where they had beaten him and took Rs,5000 for his release through Gul Hassan.Major Punishment; Forfeiture of approved service for two Years by SSP District Malir KarachiSSP/ Malir/ DP/3494, 3495, 3496, dated 23.6.1997Nil 10No. EB/DP/ 51841-46, dated 2.8.1999He was placed under suspension by SP Admin CIA, Karachi on 1-7-1999 as he managed his relieving for ACLC Karachi instead od reporting in the Police Line District Central, Karachi, Without any prior Intimation to the officer concerned.Minor Punishment; Stoppage of increment for two years for DIG Police Karachi. Nil 11No. SSP/C/ EB-111/ 9415-As per the report of AD&RC control,Minor Punishment;SSP/C/SII- III/ 2291, datedNil 201, dated 31.3.2000while he was posted In District Central, Karachi, there were Many complaints about him from the general. public. He was posted in ADRC District Central again on 5- 2-2000 but he did not change his attitude.Stoppage of increment for Two years by SSP District Central, Karachi22.3.2000 12No. DIGP/EZ/ 1981-9-22 dated 21.7.2010A complaint was Filed regarding Illegally occupancy Of a plot of land Measuring 400 Sq.Yds in Katchi Abadi Bilal Colony which had been illegally occupied by Ghundas. An enquiry conducted by PCA Karachi Range Revealed that the Bilal Colony Police Post and K.Ind Area Police Station was approached for legal help, no help was provided.
During the enquiry, Ismail Lashari was called By PCA CCP Karachi in Connection with recording his statements but he did not turn up which shows that he had misused his official position, extorted a huge amount of money and allowed the Ghundas to illegallyMinor Punishment; Stoppage of increment for Two years by DIG Police (East Zone)
KarachiNo. DIGP/ EZ/ DP/ 5462 dated 1.3.2010Nil occupy the said plot. Also committed the act of disobedience to orders of a senior which amounts to grave misconduct.
13DIGP/EZ/DP/ 19827-30 dated 21.7.2010Constable Muhammad Sohail(aged 32) was killed by unknown accused person. An FIR was registered and investigation for this case was assigned to Ismail Lashari who - according to a report of an inquiry committee formed by PPO Sindh had conducted a poor and unsatisfactory investigation. No solid steps were taken to trace the culprits, and his performance was lethargic and unprofessional for an SHO (which was his position at the time). This negligence, inefficiency and lack of interest in official assignments amounts to gross misconduct.Minor Punishment; Stoppage of increment for One year by DIG Police (East Zone)
Karachi.DIGP/ EZ/ DP/13451 dated 21.5.2010Nil 14No. DIGP/EZ/ DP/ 19809-13 dated 21.7.2010While he was posted As SHO Jackson Police Station, it was Found through reliable sources that The followingMinor Punishment; stoppage of increment for one year.DIGP/ SZ/ DP/ 16504 dated 12.8.2009Nil Organized crimes Were being committed with- active connivance of the police: (1)
Raza Khan, Rahim Khan, Kamil Khan, stealing oil from oil supply lines (2)
Momin Khan selling drugs at railway tracks (3) Laiq Shah selling Drugs at Tapu (4) Awal Khan selling Drugs at Tapu (5) Khalid Ghora selling drugs at Mason Road (6)
Aslam running Gutka factory at Massan Road.
15No. DIGPI EZ/ DP/ 19805-08 dated 21.7.2010Reported by SPO Korangi on 10.11.2009 that several complaints Have been received and reliable sources confirm that he was Involved in land grabbing.
Many active land grabber in Mehran Town have been given shelter during his posting period and 3 4 times exchanges of firing also took place. 17 heinous cases were reported of this nature which still remain undetected.
Shown incompetence, inefficiency and irresponsibility onMinor Punishment; Stoppasge of increment for One year by DIG Police (East Zone)
KarachiDIGP/ EZ/ DP/ 1871 dated 26.1.2010Nil his part resulting in gross misconduct.
16SSP/E/DPC/ 3392-98 dated 19.1.2002Allegation not Available in Character Roll/S. BooKMajor Punishment; Forfeiture of approved service by SSP District East Nil 17SSP/C/SB-111/ 2000-10-308- 13 dated 10.4.2000As reported by incharge A D&RC Central vide office letter No.1401, he brought one person, Mazhar Iqbal son of Ghualm Hussain along with his Suzuki in ADRC and arrested him under Section 54 and his vehicle was detained under section 550, Cr.P.C.
He did not bother to bring this to the attention of his superiors nor made any entry in Roznamcha.
He was also issued Another SCN dated 11-3-2000 on charge That his work performance for the Month of January and February was zero and only two cases were detected by him.Major Punishment; Dismissal from Service SSP DG Central KarachiNo. SSP/ C/ SB-111/ 2288 dated 22.3.2000.Filed appeal against dismissal.
Dismissal order converted into forfeiture of approved service for two years Vide IGP Sindh order dated 1.1.2001 18No. SP/KT/ EZ/ EOM/ DP 1428 dated 27.4.2010On 03-11-2009 at 1300 hours a quarrel between two groups took place resulting in serious injuries to Imam Dino who later on expired.Minor Punishment; Stoppage of Increment for One year by DIG Police (East Zone)
Karachi Nil Two suspects Faraz and Waqas also received injuries who were later brought to the Police Station from where they were set free. Enquiry revealed that he was responsible for this mishap.
19DIGP/ INV/ DP/ 9680-85 dated 11.7.2009From perusal of daily crime statement of street crimes/mobile snatching/ cash/ house/ bank robbery dacoity dated 9.3.2009 it was observed that dacoity/ robbery of Cash Rs,50,000 on 27.2.2009 was not registered on time.
It was then registered after a delay of 11 days.Major Punishment; Forfeiture of approved service for one year by DIGP Investigation Karachi Nil 20DICP/ EZ/ DP/ 968691 dated 11.7.2009From perusal of daily crime statement of street crimes/ mobile snatching/cash/ house/ bank robbery dacoity dated 9.3.2009 it was observed that dacoity/ robbery of cash Rs,2,40,366 on 27.2.2009 was not registered on time.
It was then registered after a delay of 14 days.Major Punishment; Forfeiture of approved service for one year by DIGP Investigation Karachi.DIGP/ EZ/ DP/ 6092 dated 13.3.2009Nil 21CCP0/E-11/Pt- 32/2010- 68861- 65 dated11.6.2010It was reported that HC Tariq Khokhar was killed on 24thApril, 2014 by unknown personsMajor Punishment; Forfeiture of approvedservice for one year by Nil And his dead body was recovered from Marshes of Qayumabad Nadi Korangi. An enquiry Was conducted to reveal the real facts which found that he had be inefficient, lethargic Irresponsible and Hacked interest towards official assignments.DIGP Investigation Karachi 22DIG/SZ/DP/ 13491-97 dated 15.7.2015As per orders of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan Under Criminal Petition No. 89-K of 2014, on account of extending threats and Complainant having fear of death from you, the SC held that proceedings under 16.2 of the Police Rules, 1934 will be started by you.
After an enquiry was conducted, the EO recommended that necessary departmental action be taken against the delinquent officers as gross misconduct has been proved against them.Major Punishment; Dismissal from service by DIGP South Zone Karachi.DIGP/SZ/ DP/ 10113 dated 22.5.2015He filed appeal before the Additional IGP Karachi.
Appeal wasexamined and rejected vide order No.EB/ E-II/ DP 2015- 108648- 54 dated11.11.2015.
As a result ofan appeal, the Hon'ble SST has set aside. The dismissal Order and IGP Sindh Has been directed toissue SCN to the Respondent.
Leave to Appeal against the Order of the Hon'ble SST is under process in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. punishments Awarded to Ex-Sub-Inspector ISHAQ LASHARI (Respondent in C. A. No,96-K/2016) Final Order DateReason Punishments Show Cause NoticeAppeal and Decision 1Final Order No. FIB/ DP/ 51841-He along with 2 other Police Officers was underMinor Punishment;- Nil
46. Dated 2.8.1999suspension by SP Admin CIA Karachi on 01-07- 1999 on the charge that they managed their relieving for ACLC Karachi instead of without any prior intimation to the officer concerned.stoppage of increment for two years by DIG Police Karachi Range 2No. SSP/C/ SB- 111/ 344-49. dated 31.3.2000As per the report of A D&RC control, while he was posted in District Central, Karachi, there were many complaints about him from the general public. Due to complaints he was returned back to Police Line District Central on 25.10.1999. He was posted in A DRC District Central again on 05-02- 2000 but he did not change his attitude.Minor Punishment; stoppage of increment for two years by SSP District Central, Karachi.
Also released form suspension.No. EB/ E- II/C/ 22891, dated 22.3.2000Nil 3No. DIGP/SZ/ DP/ 23041-44 dated 10.10.2009He was directed to take strict action against pillion riders, but a perusal of the statement dated 03-03-2009 it was revealed that no such action was taken by him.
This shows that being SHO he did not pay any heed to the directions of his superiors and miserably failed to take the required action in the matter.Minor Punishment: stoppage of increment for two years by SSP DIGP South Zone, CCP KarachiNo. DIGP/ SZ/ DP/ 4264 dated 6.3.2009Nil 4No.DIGP/SC/ RDR/ DP 5358 dated 18.10.2012From 2.8.2012 to 3.8.2012, two days of dacoity cases were registered in PS Bloch Colony where he was the SHO. He was called in person to adopt extensive preventative measures to curb the crime.Major Punishment, Forfeiture of approved service for two years and strictly warned to be careful in future.No. RDR/ 2613 dated 9.8.2012Nil 5No. DIGP/SZ/ RDR/ DP/ 5256 dated 15.10.2012From 24.8.2012 to 30.8.2012, two days of murder cases were registered in PS Bloch Colony where he was the SHO. He was called in person to adopt extensive preventative measures to curb the crime.Major Punishment, reduction of rank from SI to ASINo. RDR/ 2721 dated 24.8.2012. No. RDR/ 2810 dated 30.8.2012Appeal filed before appellate authority, Additional IGP Karachi.
Appeal accepted and order of reduction of rank from SI to ASI was set aside vide order dated 13.1.2013.
6DIGP/SZ/ RDR/ DP/ 5446 dated 25.10.2012From 26.6.2012 to 1.9.2012, robbery cases were registered in PS Bloch Colony where he was the SHO. Ile was called in person to adopt extensive preventative measures to curb the crime.Major Punishment; Forfeiture of approved service for two years and strictly warned to be careful in future.No. 2224 dated 6.7.2012 and 8 others SNCsNil 7DIGP/SZ/RDR/ DP/5485 dated 31.10.2012While posted as SHO of PS Baloch Colony he committed a promise to detect and arrest the accused involved in Dr. Saleem Kharrat's murder case which he failed to do in the next 3 months that he was SHO there.
Failed to submit written reply or appear in OR hence ex parte decision taken against him.Major Punishment; Forfeiture of approved service for two years and strictly warned to be careful in future. Nil 8DIGP/SZ/DP/ 23037-40 dated 10.10.2009Perusal of statement of stole vehicles on 14-9- 2009 it was found that 3 four wheelers were stolen from your areas.
Reflects irresponsibility and failure to enforce preventative measures to curb crime.Major Punishment; Forefiture of approved service for two years by DGP South Zone, karachi Nil 9No.
DIGP/SZ/DP/As per orders of Honourable SupremeMajor Punishment;No. DIGP/ SZ/DP/Filed appeal to appellate 13498-504 dated 15.7.2015.Court of Pakistan under Criminal Petition No,89- 1C of 2014, on account of extending threats and complainant having fear of death from you, the SC held that proceedings under 16.2 of the Police Rules 1934 will be started by you. After an enquiry was conducted, the EO recommended that necessary departmental action be taken against the delinquent officers as gross misconduct has been proved against them.dismissal of service by DGP South Zone.13498-504 dated 15.7.2015authority against order of dismissal.
Appeal rejected vide order dated 10.11.2015.
Leave to appeal against order of Hon'ble SST is under process in the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan.
3. Upon perusal of the patchy records of the Respondents, this Court directed the Inspector General of the Sindh Police to screen out all those police officials who have patchy records in their dossier and initiate departmental proceedings against them under Rule 16.2 of the Police Rules, 1934. In the advent of this direction, on, 22-05-2015 the Respondents were issued Show Cause Notices under section 5(4) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000, as amended by the Sindh Ordinance (XVII) of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance or RSO).
The Respondent, Muhammad Ismail Lashari (Civil Appeal No,95-K of 2016), was issued show cause notice by the DIG (South Zone), Karachi, which' is reproduced hereunder: "WHEREAS, I am satisfied that the nature of allegations is such for Which sufficient documentary evidence as required under section 5(4) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance 2000 as amended by Sindh Ordinance XVII of 2001 is available and no departmental inquiry as contemplated by section 5(1) of the aforesaid Ordinance is considered necessary.
AND WHEREAS, I am of the view that the allegations if established call for the award of one or more punishments.
Now, Therefore, I Capt. Rtd. Feroz Shah, PSP, PPM, Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Karachi, as per Rule 3(i)(a) of the aforesaid Ordinance on the basis of following grounds of action, authorized officer, call upon inspector K-1827 Ismail Lashari under Suspension Former SHO Sohrab Goth PS now PHQ Garden South Zone, Karachi to SHOW CAUSE NOTICE within seven (7) days of the receipt hereof, as to why you should not be awarded any one of the punishments laid down in the said Ordinance, While submitting your reply you should also state whether you desire to be heard in person. as per orders by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in Criminal Petition No, 89-K of 2014 that complainant Anwer Ali was present in Court stated therein that he is being extended threats by you and Sub-Inspector Shaikh Shoaib Ali. Complainant further states that you and your brother namely Ishaq Lashari chased him and apprehends danger of his life and lives of his family members with your ends. The Honourable Court has further ordered that if any harm is caused either to the complainant or any of his family member you, SI Shaikh Shoaib Ali and Ishaq Lashari will be held responsible.
The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has also asked for initiating proceeding against you under rule 16.2 of the Police Rules 1934, being patch record, which shows that during the length of service you were awarded 07 major punishments including Dismissal from service twice and Forfeiture of Approved Service (04 times). Further, you were discharged from service once; reverted to substantive ranks thrice and suspended for several times due to involvement in illegal activities, corruption/malpractice. You were also involved in FIR No,90/2015 under sections 365/395/302/34, P.P.C. Of PS Sachal. Furthermore, as per entry mentioned in your service bookACE case No,50/ 97 and criminal case vide FIR No,101/06 under sections 363/342/302, P.P.C. Of PS Sakrand were also registered against you, Being a member of the disciplinary force your involvement in such illegal activities is against the norms of discipline which damaged the credibility of police department in the eye of judiciary as well as general public for which you have rendered yourself liable for disciplinary action under RSO-2000 (including dismissal from service).
In case your reply is not received within the specified period, it shall be presumed that you have nothing to say in your defence and the case will be decided ex parte.
4. The Respondent, Muhammad Ishaq Lashari (Civil Appeal No,96-K of 206), was also issued show- cause notice which is reproduced hereunder: "WHEREAS, I am satisfied that the nature of allegations is such for which sufficient documentary evidence as required under section 5(4) of the Removal From Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000 as amended by Sindh Ordinance XVII of 2001 is available and no departmental inquiry as contemplated by section 5(1) of the aforesaid Ordinance is ccnsidered necessary.
AND WHEREAS, I am of the view that the allegation's if established, call for the award of one or more punishments.
Now, Therefore, I Capt: Rtd. Feroz Shah, PSP, PPM, Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Karachi, as per Rule 3(i)(a) of the aforesaid Ordinance on the basis of following grounds of action, authorized officer call upon inspector k-1827 Ismail Lashari under Suspension Former SHO Sohrab Goth PS now PHQ Garden South Zone, Karachi to SHOW CAUSE within seven (7) days of the receipt hereof, as to why you should not be awarded any one of the punishments laid down in the said Ordinance. While submitting your reply you should also state whether you desire to be heard in person. as per orders by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in Criminal Petition No,89-K of 2014 that complainant Anwer Ali was present in Court stated therein that he is being extended threats by you and Sub-Inspector Shaikh Shoaib Ali. Complainant further states that you and your brother namely !Shag Lashari chased him and apprehends danger of his life and lives of his family members with your ends. The Honourable Court has further ordered that if any harm is caused either to the complainant or any of his family member you, SI Shaikh Shoaib Ali and PI Ismail Lashari will be held responsible.
The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has also asked for initiating proceeding against you under rule 16.2 of the Police 1 Rules, 1934, being patch record, which shows that during the length of service you were awarded minor punishment of stoppage of increments for 05 times and suspended for several times due to involvement in illegal activities, corruption/malpractice. You were also involved in case FIR No,43/2000 under sections 392/34, 337-H Q&D of PS Gadap. Being a member of the disciplinary force your involvement in such illegal activities is against the norms of discipline which damaged the credibility of police department in the eye of judiciary as well as general public for which you have rendered yourself liable for disciplinary, action under RSO-2000 (including dismissal from service).
In case your reply is not received within the specified period, it shall, bepresumed that you have nothing to say in your defence and the case will be decided ex pane.
5. In these show-cause notices, the DIGP South Karachi has mentioned that there was sufficient documentary evidence against both the Respondents and therefore, under section 5(4) of the Ordinance, he exercised his powers to dispense with the regular inquiry. The Respondents submitted their replies to the show cause notices, pleading their innocence. However, Respondent Muhammad Ismail Lashari, in his reply to the show cause notice dated 22-05-2015 admitted to have been penalized by the competent Authority on several occasions. The relevant paragraph from his reply to show cause notice is reproduced hereunder; "2. As regards allegations that 1 was awarded 07 major punishments including dismissal from service twice and forfeiture of approved service (04 times), discharged from service once and reverted to substantive ranks thrice and suspended for several times it may be mentioned that under the law (Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan) no one can be penalized twice for the same guilt. Since I had already been awarded such punishments, these punishments cannot be taken as justification for further punishment."
6. Respondent Muhammad Ishaq Lashari too in his reply to show-cause notice admitted to being awarded minor punishments of stoppage of increment on five occasions. The relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder; "2. As regard the allegations that I was awarded minor punishment of stoppage of increments for 05 times, it may be mentioned that under the law (Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan) no one can be penalized twice for the same guilt. Since I had already been awarded such minor punishments, no further punishment can be awarded on the basis of such minor punishments."
7. Following the reply of the Respondents to the show-cause notice, they were proceeded against departmentally under the Ordinance read with Rule 16.2 of the Police Rules, 1934. Both the Respondents have been found to have repeated the acts of misconduct that they had been penalized for,- bringing absolutely no change in their attitudes and unprofessional behaviors.
Furthermore, it must be pointed out that the Respondents had not been exonerated for any of these charges and were penalized by the competent Authority after their guilt had been proven.
The inquiry which is subject matter of these proceedings, was entrusted to Mr. Faizullah Korejo, SP Investigation-I, South Zone, Karachi, who after conducting the inquiry submitted his report to the DIG, South Zone, Karachi, on 13.07.2015, while holding them guilty of gross misconduct recommended departmental action against them. On the basis of this inquiry report, the DIG (South Zone) Karachi, by his order dated.
15.07.2015, dismissed the Respondents from service. The Respondents filed departmental Appeals which were dismissed by order dated 10.1.1.2015, passed by the Additional Inspector General of Police, Karachi Range. The Respondents preferred service Appeals before the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi, which were disposed of in the following terms:- "19. For the foregoing reasons the entire proceedings initiated against the appellants by the Deputy Inspector General of Police South Zone Karachi and final order of their dismissal from service, as well as final order passed by Mr. Sultan Ali Khawaja, DIG (Administration) for Additional Inspector General of Police Karachi Range on their appeals are set-aside being without jurisdiction and violative of the mandatory provisions contained in the RSO, 2000.
20. However, since the allegations against both the appellants are of serious nature and no proper proceedings/enquiry in accordance with law has been conducted, therefore, the case in respect of appellant Muhammad Ismail Lashari is remanded to the Inspector General of Police, who is the competent authority, for de novo proceedings strictly in accordance with the law. The Inspector General of Police Sindh shall issue fresh show cause notice and shall not dispense with the enquiry envisaged under section 5(1) of the RSO 2000 and conclude the proceedings expeditiously strictly in accordance with the. Law contained in the RSO 2000 and explained in this judgment. Likewise, the case of Sub-Inspector Mohammad Ishaq Lashari is remanded to the Additional Inspector General of Police Karachi Range for denovo proceedings on the same lines. The show cause notices containing charges and detailed allegations shall be issued by the Inspector General of Police Sindh and Additional Inspector General Karachi Range, the competent authorities themselves and not by any other officer working in their establishment or under their administrative control. Likewise, if any appeals/representations under section 9 of RSO 2000, are preferred to Home Secretary or IG Police such appeals shall be heard and decided by the said appellate authorities themselves, and not by any officer working in their establishment or under their subordination or administrative control. The reason being that jurisdiction so exercised in quasi-judicial in nature and the judicial or quasi judicial powers/jurisdiction, cannot be delegated to anyone else. The original final order and the appellate final order shall be detailed order and not slipshod and sketchy order and the provisions contained in section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 shall be kept in view which reads as follows:- "24A. Exercise of power under enactments.-(1) Where, by or under any enactment, a power to make any order or give any direction is conferred on any authority, office or person such power shall be exercised reasonably, fairly, justly and for the advancement of the purposes of the enactment.
(2) The authority, office or person making any order or issuing any direction under the powers conferred by or under any enactment shall, so far as necessary or appropriate, give reasons for making the order or, as the case may be for issuing the direction and shall provide a copy of the order or as the case may be, the direction to the person affected prejudicially."
8. The Additional Inspector General of Police, Karachi Range, preferred Civil Petitions for leave to Appeal before this Court. On .16.06.2016, this Court granted leave to Appeal as under:- "It is contended by learned AAG that the learned Sindh Service Tribunal has allowed the Service Appeal of the respondents on the only ground that the orders for the dismissal from service was not passed by the competent authority. He contends that in terms of Rule 16.1 of Police Rules, 1934, the DIG Police is _ competent to pass dismissal order against the Inspector namely Muhammad Ismail Lashari and SSP was competent to pass dismissal order against the Sub-Inspector namely Muhammad Ishaq Lashari and both these officers have respectively passed the orders and there was no illegality in the same and that the Service Tribunal has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter while passing the impugned judgment. Leave to Appeal is granted to consider the above question. The impugned judgment until the decision of Appeal shall remain suspended."
9. The learned Additional Advocate General has contended that the Tribunal has erred in law while setting aside the departmental penalties of the Respondents, by declaring that the D.I.G. (South Zone) Police was not competent to initiate departmental proceedings. He contended that the Respondents were proceeded against under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000, read with Rule 16.2 of the Police Rules, 1934, under which the D.I.G Police is competent to pass any order in respect of the Police Officials up to the rank of Inspector. The Removal from Service (Special Powers} Ordinance, 2000, applies to all persons in the Government service, the initiation of proceedings under the Ordinance was in conformity with the law. For the punishment of a police officer under departmental proceedings, Rule 16.1 of the Police Rules comes into play which states that no police officer shall be departmentally punished otherwise than as provided in the rules. Hence the awarding of punishment to the Respondents under the Police Rules was in conformity with the applicable law. According to the learned Law Officer on 06.02.1959, an amendment was brought in Rule 16.28 of the Police Rules, 1934, whereby the I.G.P, the Additional I.G.P., D.I.G. And a Superintendent of Police were authorized to call for and examine the records of any case and were further conferred powers to impose any punishment specified in sub-rule (2) of Rule 16.1 in any case in which no punishment has been inflicted and can also confirm, enhance, modify or annul the punishment in any case in which any punishment specified in sub-rule (2) of rule 16.1 has been inflicted and make or direct to be made further investigation before orders. The learned law officer contends that this amendment was not taken note of while passing the impugned judgment.
10. He next contended that the charges against which the Respondents were penalized at times were of very serious nature which include major penalties. He submits that disciplinary, proceedings were initiated on the directives of this Court and in light of the patchy records of the Respondents, it is obvious that the presence of such personnel on the strength of the police force will damage its image in the eyes of the general public. It is next contended by the learned Law Officer that section 2(a) of the Ordinance defines "Competent Authority". He contended that the Chief Minister or any person authorized by him, who is not inferior in rank to the appointing authority prescribed for the post, could proceed against a person against whom action is proposed to be taken. The Learned Law Officer contended that under Rule 12.1 of the Police Rules, the DIG is the Appointing Authority for an Inspector and hence the DIG was the competent Authority to award the penalty of dismissal from service. Rule 16.1 of the Police Rules provides that the DIG Police is empowered to award major punishment of dismissal from service to an Inspector. He contended that under the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1988, an officer of the rank of DIG is competent to award major punishment of dismissal from service to an Inspector.
Furthermore, section 7 of the Police Act 1861, which relates to appointments and dismissals, states that the Inspector General, Deputy Inspectors General and Assistant Inspectors General may dismiss, suspend or reduce any police officer of the subordinate ranks whom they shall think remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty or unfit for the same. He further contended that the Government of Sindh, vide Notification dated 10.06.2015, declared that the Appointing Authority is competent to award major punishment to an officer and the Authority next to the Appointing Authority is the Appellate Authority. He contended that therefore under section 2(a) of the RSO, the competent Authority for the purposes of awarding major punishment of removal from service was the DIG (South) and the learned Tribunal was misled in believing that the DIG (South) was not competent to award the penalty of dismissal from service.
11. On the other hand, Mr. M. Shoaib Shaheen, learned ASC for the Respondents has contended that the Respondents were proceeded against under the provisions of the Ordinance of 2000, and that the D.I.G.P. Was not competent to pass any order under the Ordinance against the Respondents, as the competent Authority for imposing a penalty upon the Respondents was the I.C.P. He submits that the entire proceedings, as held by the Tribunal, were void ab initio in view of the language of section 11 of the Ordinance. He next contended that the punishments which were incorporated in the show cause notice relate to past and closed transaction and the Respondents could not be penalized for the same charge twice. He referred to Article 13 of the Constitution to argue that a person cannot be vexed twice for the same charge. He next contended that the Ordinance of 2000 contains a non obstante clause and has overriding effect on the other laws, therefore, once the proceedings were initiated under the Ordinance, resort cannot be made to Rule 16.2 of the Police Rules.
12. We have heard the learned Law Officer and the learned Counsel for the Respondents at length and have perused the record with their assistance. Before we go further, we would like to discuss the service profiles of the Respondents, which have been produced by the department. An examination of the record reveals that the Respondent, Muhammad Ismail Lashari (Respondent in Civil Appeal No,95-K of 2016), was awarded 22 major punishments during this service, which includes dismissal from service. He was also awarded minor penalties several times. Furthermore, he did not file any departmental Appeals against many of the said penalties, which were the outcome of these serious charges.
13. Likewise, the Respondent, Muhammad Ishaq Lashari (Respondent in Civil Appeal No,96-K of 2016), was awarded. Major penalties 6 times during his service with the Sindh Police against which he did not bother to file any Appeal and only contested one major punishment. The contention of the learned counsel for the Respondents that the Respondents have already been penalized departmentally and they could not have been dismissed from service on the basis of red/adverse entries recorded in their dossiers in the face of the language of Article 13 of the Constitution, is misconceived. The language used in Rule 16.2 specifically provides that an order for dismissal may be, passed on the basis of cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving B incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. The consistent misconduct of the Respondents as reflected in their service profiles squarely falls under this provision. The 'misconduct' on which an enquiry may be conducted under the Ordinance includes: conduct prejudicial to good order or service discipline or conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman or involvement or participation for gain either directly or indirectly in industry, trade or speculative transactions or abuse or misuse of the official position to gain undue advantage or assumption of financial or other obligations to private institutions or persons such as may cause embarrassment in the performance of official duties or functions
14. Similarly, the 'misconduct' on the basis of which action can be taken under the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1988 includes: "Misconduct" means conduct prejudicial to good order or discipline in the Police Force, or contrary to the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules or unbecoming of a Police Officer and a gentleman, any commission or omission which violates any provision of any law or rules regulating the function and duty of a Police Officer or to bring or attempt to bring political or other outside influence directly or indirectly to bear on the Government or any Government Officer in respect of any matter relating to the appointment, promotion, transfer, punishment, retirement or other conditions of service of a Police Officer."
15. The conduct of the Respondents reflected from their service record clearly attracts the term "misconduct" defined under the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1988 and the Ordinance. It is this overall conduct, which has resulted in the punishment under the Ordinance and the Police Rules and therefore, the perusal of the Respondents' record on the basis of which the proceedings were initiated by the competent Authority in terms of Police Rule 16.2, could not be construed to be violative of Article 13 of the Constitution. The concept of Article 13(a) of the Constitution is completely distinct from the wisdom behind Police Rule 16.2. Article 13(a) of the Constitution provides that no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once. Primarily, the wisdom behind this Article is to provide protection to a person who was tried and convicted to be vexed again in the same offence, whereas, concept of Police Rule 16.2 is, completely different whereby the penalty of dismissal from service of a police officer is awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. This penalty has further been qualified by the language of Rule 16.2 of the Police Rules to the length of service. In other words, the cumulative effect of the penalties which the competent Authority recorded in the service record of the police officers, would be examined to measure whether such police officer is fit to continue in the police service. This provision of the Police Rules is independent and has been introduced to ensure discipline within the police service and also to keep a strict check on the conduct of the police officer. This enables a constant watchful-eye on the police officer by examining their dossier at any point of time and if the competent Authority reaches the conclusion that the police officer has indulged .In acts of misconduct, which prove incorrigibility and render complete unfitness of such police personnel in the service, the competent Authority shall award the penalty of dismissal from service as has been done in the instant case. The scope of Police Rule 16.2 is wide and the object behind it is to discipline the police force and to ensure that the police officers in uniform shall not behave in a manner which entails patronizing crime or other social evils. The scheme which seems behind the Rule is to ensure that the police officials in discharge of their duties shall act in a manner which could restore confidence in the public at large. The Respondents' service profiles, which have been taken note of in the impugned judgment contained a number of poor entries reflecting their conduct in the police department. If police officials with such record are allowed to continue in service, it would not only damage the image of police force, but will also encourage social evils in the society, which the police force is required, to eliminate. In this background the contention of learned Counsel for the Respondents that Police Rules 16.1 and 16.2 are violative of Article 13(a) of the Constitution is without force.
16. Even the Tribunal has shown their displeasure on the conduct of the Respondents after examining their service record. The Police force was created under the Police Act, 1861 and was regulated under the Police Rules, 1934, The Police Rules were framed to regulate and maintain discipline within the ranks of the force. In order to achieve the objective for creating the police force, the Police Act provides room for framing rules to formulate a more disciplined police force and for that purpose punishments, which otherwise are not provided in the ordinary civil service rules, have been incorporated. The Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973, which were framed under the Civil Servants Act do not contain any such provision of the likes of Rules 16.1 and 16.2 of the Police Rules, 1934, which are meant to maintain discipline within the ranks of the Police Force and to achieve the objective of maintaining the discipline and detection of crime.
17. We are not in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that DIG (South) was not competent to award penalty of dismissal from service in view of the definition under section 2(a) of the Ordinance. The definition of the "competent. Authority" given under section 2(a) of the Ordinance of 2000 reads as under: 2(a) "Competent authority" means, the [Chief Minister] and where, in relation to any person or class of persons, the [Chief Minister] authorizes any officer or authority, not being inferior in rank to the appointing authority prescribed for the post held by the person against whom action is proposed to be taken, to exercise the powers of competent authority under this Ordinance, that officer or authority, and, in relation to an employee of a Court or Tribunal functioning under the Provincial Government, the appointing authority or the Chairman or Presiding Officer of the Court or the Tribunal."
18. Under the aforesaid definition contained in section 2(a), the competent Authority under the RSO is the Chief Minister. The said definition authorizes the Chief Minister to delegate the authority of taking cognizance under the RSO to any officer or Authority not being inferior in rank to the appointing authority prescribed for the post held by the person against whom action is proposed to be taken to exercise powers of competent Authority under the RSO On 09.05.2005, the Chief Minister in his discretion through the Services and General Administration, issued a Notification, which reads as under:- Karachi, dated the M ay 9, 2005 NOTIFICATION NO.SORIII(SGA&CD)9-28/2004: In pursuance of the provisions of section 9 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000 the Chief Minister is pleased to designate the Officer next above the appointing/competent authority mentioned in the table below for the purpose of the said section.
TABLE S. No. AUTHORITY MAKING THE ORDER AUTHORITY TO WHOM REPRESENT ATION/ REVIEW ARE T O BE MADE 1 2 3
1. Officers in Basic Scales 16, 17, 18 and 19. The Of ficer next above under whom the officer making the order is working.
2. Regional Head. Head of the Attached Department concerned and if there is no Head of the Attached Department then Secretary of the Department concerned.
3. Head of the Attached Department. Secretary of the Department unless he is of a lower grade in which case Chief Secretary through the Secretary of the Department.
4. Secretaries of the Department. Chief Secretary .
5. Chief Secretary Chief Minister .
CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF SINDH
19. Under the aforesaid Notification, the Chief Minister delegated the appellate authority in terms of section 9 to the officer next above the appointing/competent Authority. In other words, the original powers exercisable by the Chief Minister were delegated to the appointing Authority and appeal against such order under the RSO in terms of Section 9 were conferred on the next officer above the appointing Authority. In partial modification of the above said Notification, a further Notification was issued which reads as under: NOTIFICATION NO.SOR-I(SGA&CD)3-2/2000(P-I): In partial modification of this Department's Notification No,SOR- III(S&GAD)9-28/2004 dated 9th May 2005 and in pursuance of provisions of section 9 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000 the Chief Minister is pleased to designate the Officer next above the appointing/competent authority mentioned in the table below for the purpose of the said section.
TABLE S. No.AUTHORITY MAKING THE ORDER AUTHORITY TO WHOM REPRESENTATION/ REVIEW ARE TO BE MADE 1 2 3
1. Officers in Basic Scales 16, 17. 18 and 19.The Officer next above under whom the officer making the order is working.
2. Regional Head. Head of the Attached Department concerned and if there is no Head of the Attached Department then Secretary of the Department concerned.
3. Head of the Attached Department Secretary of the Department unless he is of a lower grade in which case Chief Secretary through the Secretary of the Department.
4. Secretaries of the Department. Minister Incharge of the Department concerned.
5. Chief Secretary Chief Minister.
6. If Minister concerned is appointing authority.Chief Minister (Review Petition may be filed before the Chief Minister but not appeal).
CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNM ENT OF SINDH NO. SOR-1(SGA&CD)3-2/2000(P-I)
Karachi, dated the 10th June, 2015
20. Under this Notification another clause was added whereby if the Minister concerned was the appointing Authority, the Chief Minister retained the powers (other than the appeal) to hear Review Petition. Even this Notification further clarifies that column No,2 refers to the appointing Authority.
Reading the aforesaid two Notifications together, along with the powers of the appointment under Police Rules 12.1 and 16.2, one can safely conclude that DIG (South) being the appointing Authority of the Inspector was competent to issue show cause notices to the Respondents under RSO. Police Rule 12.1 describes the DIG Police as appointing Authority of an Inspector, and Police Rule 16.1 confers powers on the DIG to award major punishment of dismissal from service of an Inspector. Moreover, under the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1988, confers powers on a DIG to award major punishment of dismissal from service to a police officer of the rank of Inspector.
21. By virtue of Police Rule 16.28 was amended on 16.02.1959 conferring powers on the I.G. Police, Additional I.G. Police, DIG and Superintendent of Police to call for and examine the record of any case and impose punishment specified in sub-Rule (2) of Rule 16.1 read with Police Rule 12.1 conferring powers on the DIG to appoint Inspector, and the Notifications issued by S&GAD reproduced hereinabove conferring appellate Authority in terms of section 9 of the Ordinance 2000. The Respondents themselves appealed against the major penalty of their dismissal from service before the Additional I.G, which was the appellate forum in terms of section 9 of the RSO by virtue of the Notifications, who too, dismissed departmental appeals of the Respondents and the Respondents thereafter, approached Sindh Service Tribunal, which by the impugned judgment has wrongly held that DIG (South) was not competent in view of the language of section 2(1) of the RSO.
22. We, for the foresaid reasons, by our short order dated 01.09.2016, have allowed these Appeals.