JUSTICE (R.) QAISER IQBAL, CHAIRPERSON --- This appeal under Section 10 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 has been filed by the appellant against impugned order dated 20.1.2017 and appellate order dated 01.06.2017 being illegal, unlawful, void ab initio. The appeal was disposed of by short order dated (sic) reproduced hereinbelow in extenso:--- "For the reasons to be recorded later on, the impugned order dated 20.01.2017 and appellate order dated 01.06.2017 are hereby set aside. The appellant is reinstated in service, at this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant does not press for back benefits. However , the respondents are directed to hold de novo inquiry in accordance with law and in spirit of Sectio n 5(1) of the RSO, 2000. The compliance report be submitted within thirty days from the date of communication of this judgment. The matter be decided on its own merits without influence the points raised in judgment. Appeal is allowed in above terms with no order as to costs."
These are the reasons thereof.
2. The facts leading to the appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Police Constable in the year 1986 in Sindh Police, Karachi Range. He passed lower course and promoted to the rank of Head Constable in the year 1993. After fulfilling the requirements, he was promoted to the rank of ASI in the year 1996 and SI in the year 2004, confirmed in the said rank in the year 2006. In the year 2016 the appellant was served with a show-cause notice dated 10.03.2016 by Additional Inspector General of Police, Karachi with the allegation as under:--- "It has been established through an enquiry that you had taken extra-ordinary interest in the case F.IR. No, 420/419/406/489F/506-B/34, P.P.C. of P.S. Kalri against accused namely Ghulam Shabbir and also misguided PSO to Addl. IGP, Karachi and never informed him that you obtained remand of said accused person from the concerned Court of law from 04.03.2016. You deliberately did not produce the progress report to DIGP South Zone, Karachi as per his direction and you dishonestly released the said accused one day before on under Section 497- H, Cr.P.C. due to your personal interest without giving any importance to the direction of DIGP South Zone, Karachi. Furthermore, the complainant has also disclosed that he has given cheque of Rs, One Lac as bribe through cheque No, 10090570 which was cashed by ASI Muhammad lqbal and also given cash of Rs, 48,000/- as bribe to you. Above act on your part shows you mala fide intentions and also shows that you are a corrupt police and disobedient Police Officer ."
3. The appellant refuted the allegation of show cause, he was suspended by Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Zone. The appellant was served with show-cause notice dated 19.03.2016 containing the same allegations issued by Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Zone Karachi. The allegations were denied, without holding regular inquiry , issuing final show-cause notice awarded major punishment of reduction in rank from SI to ASI through the impugned order dated 20.01.2017 which was assailed in departmental appeal to the Inspector General of Police which was also rejected.
4. Respondents No, 1 & 2 submitted that the appellant was awarded punishment of reduction in rank from SI to ASI by Additional Inspector General of Police, Karachi. He preferred appeal which was considered and rejected on the ground that the appellant's matter was inquired into twice and allegations of taking bribe of Rs, 100,000/- was proved.
5. Respondent No, 3 in the written statement submitted that a complaint against appellant was received in the office of answering respondent, inquiry was conducted by Inspector Waqar Ahmed Jadoon of PCA Branch, KPO in which inquiry officer recommended strict departmental action against the appellant. He was served with show- cause notice. It is submitted that during inquiry it transpired that there was documentary proof that appellant took bribe through cheque No, 10090570 in account No, 1162009500135101 and cash was received by ASI Muhammad Iqbal. The regular inquiry in the matter was dispensed with on account of documentary evidence. The inquiry officer in report dated 08.11.2016 submitted a fresh inquiry report that in his opinion the result deduced from the previous inquiry proved appellant as guilty of taking bribe of Rs, 1 lac from the complainant through cheque. However , apparently the complainant and appellant have settled the matter between themselves but this does not exonerate the appellant of the proven charge that he has taken bribe from the complainant. On account of the corrupt attitude of the appellant he was awarded the penalty .
6. Respondent No, 4 in the written state ment submitted that the instant appeal is baseless, penalty was rightly awarded to the appellant and appeal be dismissed.
7. Mr. Moula Bukhsh Khoso has contended that the imposition of the penalty is based on the finding of inquiry officer. The department has not conducted any regular inquiry into the matter . In fact finding inquiry the opportunity of the cross-examination of the witnesses was not afforded to the appellant such lapse has resulted in miscarriage of justice and caused prejudice to the appellant's case. It is next urged that the dispensation of regular inquiry in such-like cases where a third person had got cheque and cash who is also a civil servant with the charge that he had paid the bribe money to the appellant after getting the cheque encashed required production of evidence whereas in fact finding inquiry it has been candidly laid down by the inquiry officer that the complainant and the appellant have resolved the dispute betw een themselves. In case of Muhammad Haleem & another v. General Manager (Operation), Pakistan Railways Headquarter , Lahore and others, 2009 SCMR 339, it has been held that where the allegations/charges/misconduct is of the nature requiring production of evidence to prove the same, then holding of departmental inquiry is a necessary condition and dispensation therewit h cannot be made as in the first place there would be no evidence or material in possession of the department be establish and prove the charges/allegations of fact and secondly , that the civil servant proceeded against would be deprived of his right to defend himself properly as it would not be possible for him to cross-examine the witnesses, who would depose against him and from their cross-examination, he could not elicit favourable and beneficial statement. It is further held that when initial order or act relatin g of initiation of proceedings was contrary to law and illegal, then all subsequent proceedings and actions taken thereon would have no basis and would fall.
8. Mr. Asif Hussain Mangi, learned Addl. Advocate General did not controvert .the case of the appellant in letter and spirit, therefore, impugned original and appellate orders are set aside. The appellant did not press for back benefits at this juncture. However , the department is directed to hold de novo inquiry in accordance with law within 30 days from the date of communication of this judgment and the result of inquiry be communicated to this Tribunal, through Registrar for our perusal in Chamber .
The appeal was allowed by short order referred hereinabove. These are the reasons thereof