MALIK MUHAMMAD PERVEZ (CHAIRMAN). --Appellant Muhammad Ilyas assailed the impugned order dated 8-11-1986 passed by respondent No.1 vide which his appeal against the judgment of respondent No.2 was dismissed, before the Tribunal through the present appeal alleging therein that he joined the Police force, District Hazara (now District Abbottabad) as an F.C. And during the period of his dismissal he was serving as L.H.C. P.S. Nara when in consequence of an incident which took place in the P. S., an enquiry was conducted at the direction of respondent No.2 by the then S.P.
Abbottabad, resulting in his dismissal. According to him the enquiry officer did not comply with the mandatory provisions of conducting the enquiry and the authority i.e. Respondent No.2 also did not apply his mind, but dittoed the recommendations of the enquiry officer without serving upon him the final show-cause notice. The relevant copies of the charge-sheet, summary of allegations, reply to the charge-sheet, enquiry report, order of respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 were placed on the record alongwith the appeal filed by the appellant before the respondent No.1, as Annexures A to G.
2. Respondents in response to the notices issued by the Tribunal submitted the written statement by denying the allegations levelled by the appellant and supported the enquiry proceedings initiated against him as well as the order passed by the respondent in this respect.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the instant case authority himself conducted the enquiry and no enquiry officer was appointed; that no preliminary or final notice was served upon him; that the P.Ws. Cross-examined the P.Ws. And one Safdar at whose instance the enquiry was conducted was treated as a party by giving him the opportunity to cross-examine the enquiry witnesses. The respondent No.2 made a stereo-type order on the enquiry report filed by the enquiry officer and did not give any reasoning; in making the impugned order. The other accused--officials were later on re-instated/upgraded excepting the appellant.
4. Mr. Maqbool Hussain, P.I. Abbottabad argued on behalf of the respondents and supported the enquiry proceedings conducted by the enquiry officer and the subsequent orders passed thereafter by respondents Nos.1 and 2.
5. We have given our serious thought to the arguments advanced by both the sides and have also gone through the record of the case with their assistance and have come to the conclusion that the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer was not proper and legal. The authority according to Police Rules, 1975 was bound to frame the charge-sheet and summary of allegations which in the instant case was not done by him but by the enquiry officer, thus violating the requirement laid down in Rule 6 of the Police Rules, 1975. Besides this the appellant was not served with the preliminary as well as the final notices which though were not incorporated in the Police Rules, 1975 but the principle of audi alteram partem cannot be overlooked by any authority exercising the judicial or quasi-judicial functions which relate to the career of a Government employee in the present case the appellant was serving as a D.F.C. In P.S. Nara while another senior officer namely, Muhammad Farid M.H.C. Was present at the relevant time when Muhammad Safdar Local Union Council Member visited the P.S. In connection with a case of one Gul Zaman, and hot words were exchanged between two resulting in the pelting of stones upon the P.S. And causing injuries to one F.C. As well as registration of a case U/S.353/332/427/147/148/506, P.P.C. Later on the said Muhammad Farid was upgraded and F.C. Muhammad Suleman was re-instated but not the appellant. A perusal of the enquiry report dated 28-7-1986 would show that at para. No.7, page No.6 the enquiry officer himself admitted that senior most police officials were present in the P.S. And the appellant as well as F.C. Suleman were nobody to enter into dialogue with the said member. The status of Member Safdar was that of an enquiry witness but the enquiry officer treated him as a complainant party by allowing him the opportunity to cross-examine the other witnesses. This was not done by him in accordance with the provisions of the Police Rules. At best he was a witness and this opportunity should not have been given to him.
6. Respondent No.2 on receipt of the enquiry report, simply endorsed at the end of the enquiry report "I agree with the finding of the enquiry and approve the punishments suggested". This clearly shows that respondent No.2 had not given his independent findings by discussing the pros & cons of the enquiry report. He also failed to serve upon the appellant the final notice. All this would lead to the conclusion that the appeal filed by the appellant must be accepted and we accordingly accept the present appeal, set aide the impugned orders. The appellant stands re-instated alongwith all the back benefits, with no orders as to costs.
M.Y.H./53-S/Sr.N.