1. MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN). -The appellants while posted as S. H. O. Chakiwara Police Station and S. H. O. Kalakot Police Station were served with show-cause notice by the Superintendent of Police, City Division, Karachi in respect of two allegations the first being that they were negligent in their duty to control illicit trade in liquor eventually resulting in death of several persons due to one of poisonous country liquor and secondly that they had a persistent reputation of being corrupt.
2. Both the appellants were offered opportunity to be heard in person if they so desired.
3. The appellants asked for full particulars of these two charges but no particulars were furnished and they desired to be heard in person but this opportunity was denied to them.
4. By an omnibus order dated 7th April, 1975, the Chief Secretary of Government of Sind dealt with the cases of 31 civil servants namely, Police and Excise Officers, Head Constables and Constables who were all dismissed with effect from 7th April, 1975.
5. Most of the dismissed civil servants filed review petitions because the orders were passed by the Government and not by prescribed authority under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Afterwards they preferred service appeals before the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected these appeals as time barred, after which appeals were filed before the Supreme Court. These appeals of appellants Lai Muhammad and Muhammad Aslam have since been decided by the Supreme Court being Civil Appeals Nos. K-13 and K-14 of 1978 by judgment dated 17th May, 1980, (1980 SCMR 850 ) Lal Muhammad was A. S. 1. Kalakot Police Station dismissed at S. No. 14 in the omnibus order and Muhammad Aslam was Head Constable dismissed at S.No. 15. The cases of three more appellants namely Mr. Maqbool Asif Bajwa, Sub-Inspector of Police, Mr. Sulleman Butt, Sub-Inspector Police and Mr. Muzaffar Hussain Shah, Sub-Inspector of Police dismissed at S. Nos. 3. 6 and 8 were remanded to the Service Tribunal for decision on merits. The appeal of Muzaffar Hussain Shah has already been separately decided by order dated 2nd May, 1982. That appeal has been allowed for reasons mentioned in that order based on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in their judgment, allowing the appeals of Lal Muhammad and Muhammad Aslam. The cases of the present two appellants Maqbool Asif Bajwa and Sulleman Fazal Din Butt are also similar to the cases of Muzaffar Hussain Shah and Lal Muhammad and Muhammad Aslam with slight variations with regard to posting.
6. The main reasons mentioned in the judgment of the Supreme Court for allowing the appeals were as under :--
(i) The notices were so vague that the appellants requested for being furnished with full particulars of the charges but their very reasonable request was not complied with.
(ii) The show-cause notices were in flagrant violations of the mandatory provisions of subrule (3) of rule 5 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 as they contained bare allegations but without any grounds for these allegations.
7. (i.e) The appellants were offered personal bearing which offer was accepted by them but afterwards they were not given any opportunity of being heard in person.
(iv) The appellants had been condemned on the basis of a report submitted by the Enquiry Committee of which they had no knowledge and of which they had not been given any particulars.
8. They had not participated in this enquiry and they have never been confronted with this report.
9. The Supreme Court, therefore, considered the view taken by the Tribunal in these cases as illegal and allowed the appeals of Lal Muhammad and Muhammad Aslam.
10. The case of Mazaffar Hussain Shah, Sub-Inspector of Police remanded by the Supreme Court was re-heard by this Tribunal and the appeal was allowed on similar grounds mentioned in the order of the Supreme Court referred to above.
11. The cases of Maqbool Asif Bajwa and Sulleman Fazal Din Butt are similar to the cases already decided by the Supreme Court and the Tribunal as they were dismissed by the same order of the Government at S. Nos. 5 and 6. The show-cause notice in their case too are vague. No particulars in respect of the charges were furnished to them. The notices did not contain any grounds for taking action. They were not given the personal hearing though the same had been offered and accepted. The copy of the enquiry report had not been furnished to them and lastly that the final order was passed by the Government in violation of the Efficiency, and Discipline Rules as the prescribed authority in their case was the Deputy Inspector-General of Police. They were thus denied the opportunity of preferring appeal on facts before the appellate authority namely the Inspector-General of Police. Mr. Hassan Akbar, A. A.-G. Also frankly concedes that in view of the Supreme Court decision the orders passed against the two Sub-Inspectors cannot be sustained.
12. Therefore for reasons mentioned by the Supreme Court in the appellate judgment dated. 17th May, 1980 (copy kept below for ready reference) and further grounds stated in the similar appeal No. 124 of 1975 by the Service Tribunal in the case of Muzaffar Hussain Shah (copy kept below for ready reference, the order of. Dismissal passed against the presents appellants Maqhool Asif Bajwa and Sullenian Fazdl Din Butt cannot be sustained being vitiated by the illegalities and material defects in procedure. The orders are accordingly set aside and the appeals are allowed with no order as to costs. The Government may, however, if they so desire order fresh proceedings to be taken against these two appellants on definite charges to be mentioned in the show-cause notice. They may be furnished with full particulars in respect of these charges and their attention may also be drawn to the relevant portions of the enquiry report furnished by the Enquiry Officer the then District and Sessions Judge, Karachi. They may be heard in person and allowed full opportunity to defend themselves. The proceedings should be conducted by the Police Department and the final orders may be allowed to be passed by the 'Authority' prescribed for these Officers under the rules strictly in accordance with law. The judgment of the Tribunal in appeal No. 124 of 1975 in case of Muzaffar Hussain Shah and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeals Nos. K-13 and K- 14 of 1978 dated 17th May, 1980 shall be read for detailed grounds and reasons for this order.
13. Since the order is based on defects and illegalities in conducting the proceedings and no decision is given on facts and merits, and the Department has been given the option to hold fresh proceedings, the question of payment of arrears of salary for the intervening period in these two cases of S. H. O. May be deferred until the final orders, in case the Government decide to exercise the option.