1. MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--This appeal is directed against the order of the Secretary to Government of Sind, Home Department, dated 22-12-1983 whereby the appellant Malik Wazir Muhammad who was then working as D.S.P. Was removed from service.
2. This case arose from the police encounter arranged for arrest of notorious decoit Paroo Chandio.
3. Although the information about the presence of the said decoit in the village raided by the police turned out to be incorrect, a number of persons were killed and injured as a result of exchange of firing between the police party led by the appellant and the villagers. The appellant was amongst the injured persons. Enquiry was ordered to be made under M.L.O.19 for the purpose of fixing the responsibility for the failure of the police operation. As per recommendations submitted on conclusion of the enquiry, the appellant and two other police officers namely Ghulam Qadir Abro, S.I. And Muhammad Arif Udho, A.S.I. Were held responsible. Disciplinary action was taken against all the three of them under Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. Although the appellant was removed from service the other two were visited with lesser penalties. The appellant after availing the departmental remedy, has come in this appeal.
4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant Mr.Manzoor Ali Khan and the learned A.A.-G. Who was assisted by Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Soomro, Section Officer, Home Department.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant does not press the appeal on merits. He, however, prays for reduction in the penalty awarded to the appellant. In support of his prayer he has given the following arguments:--
(a) That the appellant had served the Department for more than 33 years when the impugned order was passed.
(b) That the appellant has unblemished rather meritorious record of service throughout.
(c) That the two police officers namely Ghulam Qadir Abro, S.I and Muhammad Arif Udho, A.S.I. Who like the appellant were involved in the same incident have been awarded lesser punishments; the former was awarded the punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale and the latter was awarded minor penalty of stoppage of annual increments.
(d) That the appellant is in the advanced age of 56 years with a large family to support with additional burden of supporting the family of his brother, A.S.I. Bashir Ahmed who while performing his duties was killed in M.R.D's movement on 10-9-1983.
(e) That appellant had suffered physically in the incident of the case as he was injured and hospitalised and as a result of head injury received by him his eyesight has been permanently affected.
6. We have given our careful thought to the above arguments. As per impugned order, the appellant has been awarded the extreme punishment of removal from service though other two police officers mentioned above who shared the responsibility of the unfortunate occurrence were visited with lesser punishments of reduction of pay and stoppage of annual increments. Even in the appellants case, the recommendations of the Home Secretary who acted as Authorized Officer were of appellant's compulsory retirement and not his outright removal from service. Our attention has also been drawn to the letter, dated 21-12-1985 of Major Muhammad Sharif S.O. To S.M.L.A.
7. Addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Sind wherein restoration of pension benefits to the appellant were recommended. We have also perused the file of appellant's A.C.Rs. It was noted with interest that but for his lapses in the incident of this case and consequent adverse entries, his record was clean and unexceptionable. Furthermore, he has put in more than 25 years service. If he had opted for voluntary retirement he would have got full pensionary benefits. We are also impressed by his old age with two families to support.
8. For the above reasons we are satisfied that this is a fit case in which leniency be shown in awarding the punishment. Accordingly we convert the appellant's punishment from removal from service to compulsory retirement from the date of impugned order. Subject to the above modification in the penalty the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. A.E./112/Sr.S