SHOUKA T ALI MEMON, MEMBER-I . Through this appeal, the appellant (Ex-Constable) of Sindh Police has impugned the original order dated 19.12.2016 of his dismissal from service issued by respondent No. 02 and the appellate order dated 27.04.2018 passed by respondent No. 1 af firming the original order .
2. According to facts, the appellant was appointed on 04.03.2003 and remained posted at CTD (Counter Terrorism Department) and performed his duties with all sincerity , obeying all the lawful orders of his superiors and although he himself belonged to the Shia sect, had arrested targeted Shia criminals and all of sudden on 24.11.2016 was put in lock-up of civil lines PS, where he remained for 15 days and during his custody , his signatures were obtained on blank paper , however , JM, Karachi South, acquitted him on 30.06.2017, from the charge falling under Section 217, PPC. The case of the appellant is that someone passed-on a false information to his superiors about extending of his support to Shia criminals and the call allegedly made from Cell No. 0306-9558237 was not in his use, yet without ordering regular enquiry and issuing final show-cause notice and without affording opportunity of personal hearing, a major punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon him, therefore, after acquittal in a criminal case, he filed this appeal praying for setting-aside of the impugned orders and for reinstatement in service with all the back benefits and continuity .
3. The comments of respondent No. 1 revealed that when appellant was deputed as locater operator for tracking the location of targets and the CDR to the criminals reveals that information was passed on of the plan against the targeted accused persons from the unit and the appellant was involved in this illegal communication, as such because of his criminal act, the plan failed and life of officer/of ficials were put in danger . The appellant during departmental proceedings confessed his guilt before competent authority , thus, was awarded major punishment of dismissal from service.
4. The comments of respondent No. 02 more or less are same attributing the appe llant leaking out of the plan. It is further stated that as per office record, the appellant has confessed his guilt and was heard in person, therefore, competent authority being satisfied about no need of any enquiry , awarded him the major punishment. Prayer is made for filing of the appeal.
Heard arguments.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant was dismissed from service without holding regular enquiry , which is otherwise mandatory in cases, where major punishment is awarded and this having not been done, the impugned order must not sustain. Learned counsel further argued that although criminal case against the appellant was registered charging him for the offence punishable under Sectio n 217, PPC, which could not succeed at trial and appellant stood acquitted by judgment dated 06.07.2017, therefore, the very basis for awarding punishment in departmental proceedings did not exist, and on that account the impugned order is without merits. In support, learned counsel relied upon case of Tariq Mehmood v. DPO Toba Tek Singh, PLD 2008 SC 451 & case of Mohammad Haleem v . GM (Operation) Pakistan Railways Headquarter , Lahore , 2009 SCMR 339 .
6. On the other hand, learned Addl. AG argued that the punishment is awarded under provisions of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000 on the basis of his admission in his reply to show-cause notice, therefore, there arose no necessity of holding regular enquiry in particular when he was heard in person. Learned State Counsel substantiated the arguments by referring to Section 5(4) of the RSO, 2000 and argued that where sufficient documentary evidence is available, the competent authority may dispense with the enquiry . Learned Addl.
AG further argued that the criminal case and the departmental proceedings are two separate legal actions and do not overlap each other , therefore, findings in criminal proceedings are irrelevant for the purpose of consideration in departmental proceedings. Learned Addl. AG Sindh further contended that police force is a disciplined organization where act of misconduct when accepted by the appellant is seriously viewed, thereafter , impugned order supported by documentary evidence bearing admission of the appellant and produced with reply/comments of the respondent No. 02 is just and proper .
7. We have considered the arguments and perused the material made available by both sides. The plea of the appellant that regular enquiry should have been conducted in his case being , a mandatory provision of law, is also subject to the exception under Section 5(4) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000, wherein enquiry could be dispensed with and when own case of the appellant that he was forced to sign certain blank papers during his custody , his denial by now that the reply to show-cause notice does not bear his signature appears after-thought, thus, is without valid reason. The police departments do carry out sensitive operations to maintain the law and order situation to protect the lives of citizens and when any act of misconduct is committed to the prejudice of protection of citizens, it must not be lightly taken. No exception can be taken to the impugned order of dismissal of service, therefore, this appeal is dismissed being without merits.