GULZAR AHMED, C.J .---W e have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appellants were booked to escort 3 Up Express "Bolan Mail" from Dadu to Jacobabad Section. When the train arrived at Dadu out 3:00 a.m. some passengers boarded the train with reserved seats. One lady passenger , namely , Mst. Rabia Bibi, was occupying a seat in the train, who apparently did not have reserved seat for her. The appellants asked her to vacate the seat for a newly boarded lady passenger who had reserved seat. It seems that the appellants not only got the seat vacated from Mst. Rabia Bibi but also raped her. A complaint was filed by her husband Muhammad Ishaque upon which an enquiry was conducted and there after, regular enquiry was also conducted in which the appellants were found guilty of the commission of the offence. Through order dated 06.07.2015, passed by the Superintendent, Pakistan Railways Police, Sukkur , the appellants were dismissed from service. The appellants filed departmental appeals; which were rejected. The appellants filed service appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (the Tribunal), which came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 15.1 1.2016.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the statement of the complainant available at page 56-A of the paper-book and referred to answer No.2, where the complainant has stated that his complaint was false and thus, submitted that the penalty imposed upon the appellants was not justified.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however , contended that the statement made by the complainant was on the basis where the appellants have sought pardon from him by holding of oath of the Holy Quran and once the complainant has pardoned the appellants, such a statement was made by him.
5. We have gone through the relevant material available on the record and have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The complainant in his examination-in-chief on 29.06.2015 has recorded as follows:- {{URDU TEXT}}
6. Learned counsel for the appellants was confronted with the statement of the complainant, where the complainant in unequivocal terms has pardoned the appellants on the appellants taking oath on Holy Quran and thus, has maintained that his previous complaint of appellants having committed rape of his wife is correct so also his statement of exonerating the appellants from the appellants as he has pardoned them. Learned counsel for the appellants could not give any satisfactory answer .
7. We may note that the Tribunal in the impugned judgment dated 15.11.2016 has dealt with the whole scenario very elaborately and has noted that despite submission of complaint with the SSP Railways, Sukkur Division of the incident of rape by the complainant, no FIR was lodged against the appellants, rather the police officials have tried to save the appellants. The Tribunal has noted in the impugned judgment that in the regular enquiry conducted against the appellants, the charge of rape was proved against them and accordingly penalty of dismissal was imposed upon them. The submission of the learned counsel that the charge was not proved, is not established by, any record, rather is based upon the statement of the complainant by which he has pardoned the appellants. The Inquiry Officer has found the appellants to be fully implicated in the commission of offence. No illegality in the impugned judgment is pointed out nor any is found by us, the appeals are therefore, dismissed.