' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--Leave to appeal was granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution in nine separate appeals to examine a question of law of public importance namely "whether the new mode adopted for proving 'misconduct' and 'corruption' namely, the actual screening of the T.V.
Film showing receipt of the money from the passengers can be considered sufficient to prove 'misconduct' and 'corruption' as defined in Rules 2(4) and 3(c) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, in place of the mode of proof traditionally employed to establish delinquencies".
2. During the period August, 1 983 to January, 1985. Eighteen months in all, the following Inspectors, Customs remained posted at the Islamabad Airport for the period noted against each: - {{TABLE}} Name of Inspector Period
(i) Saeedur Rahman. January, 1984 to January, 1985
(ii) Gul Muhammad. August 1983 to August, 1984
(iii) Amjad Hussain Shah. December 1 984 to January 1 985
(iv) Zahoor Ahmed. December, 1984 to January, 1985.
(v) Khalid Mahmood. October, 1984 to January, 1985.
(vi) Jarar All Shah. October 1984 to JanUary, 1985
(vii) Mustajab Hussain. September 1983 to December, 1 984
(viii) Muhammad Hussain Bhatti. October, 1 984 to January, 1 985
(ix) Nazir Ahmed. December, 1984 to January, 1985.
3. During this period Closed Circuit T.V. Operated at the Airport enabling the Officers to monitor and record on Video Cassette all that was happening. It was on the 5th May, 1 985 that the Authorised Officer issued show-cause notices to each of the respondents in the words that follow:- "SUBJECT: ISSUANCE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE.
' Whereas it has been reported by the Assistant Collector (Preventive) Islamabad Airport that during your tenure of posting at Islamabad Airport (Preventive) from to , you are guilty of corruption and extortion of money from passengers arriving on International flights from outside Pakistan. There is evidence of your doing so on the recording of the close Circuit. Television system installed at Islamabad Airport. This act of your amounts to 'Misconduct' and corruption as defined in rules 2(4) and 3(c) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973.
(2) You are, therefore, called upon under Rule 5(iii)(a)(b) to explain within 10 (ten) days of the issuance of this Notice as to why the major penalty of dismissal from service as laid down under Rule 4(i)(b)(iv) may not be imposed on you.
(3) Your explanation should reach the undersigned within the above-noted time failing which appropriate action under rule 5(iv) shall be taken without further "reference to you.
(4) You may also attend the hearing of the case before the undersigned in the Office of the Assistant Collector Customs (Preventive) Islamabad Airport on 21-2-1985 at 10 a . m. Positively."
4. All the respondents submitted their replies to the show-cause notice within time. All of them denied the allegations made. All of them except respondent Jarar Ali Shah (C.A. No, 486 of 1988) asked for a copy of the report of the Assistant Collector (Preventive) and a duplicate of the Video Cassette on the basis of which the allegations contained in the show-cause notice were made.
Saeedur Rahman, respondent (C.A. No, 481 of 1988) specifically raised the question of vagueness of the show-cause notice in the following words:- "These are rather vague allegations as these do not contain any details/particulars cf charges against me such as the exact date/dates of commission of the alleged offences, the name/names of the extorted passengers, date/dates and timings of flights and the name/names of the witnesses against me."
' He also took exception to the unusual conduct preceding the issuance of the show-cause notice to him in words that follow: - "It is also surprising to note as to why I was allowed to continue this allegedly nasty practice and why immediate remedial measures were not taken against me by the authorities concerned when they had evidence of my doing so on the recording of the closed circuit Television System installed at Islamabad Airport. My explanation to this general and vague allegation of corruption which is devoid of necessary details can therefore be nothing more than a categorical denial."
' About the evidentiary value of the Video Cassette he objected as follows: - "The nature of the system is such that it cannot be supported by other corroborative evidence and therefore cannot be solely relied upon to accuse the officials of corruption and provide sufficient ground to proceed against them under E & D Rules, 1973. The passengers also declare foreign currency on Form A and their verbal declaration is confirmed by the Inspector handling the passengers by was of counting the foreign currency and hence this handling ii being watched by the CCTV and raising doubts- calls for immediate action against the official at the spot by the concerned authorities rather than branding this handling subsequently as illegal gratification or extortion of money from the passengers."
5. On the 21st February, 1985, the Video Cassette was displayed in the presence of the respondents except Mr. Gul Muhammad (respondent in C.A. No, 482 of 1988) and the memo. Of screening in the following terms was drawn up: - "The close circuit I .V. Recording showing the defendant Mr.------(Inspector) was screened in the presence of following officers/ witnesses:
(1) Mr. Syed Nasar Bedar, A.D., F I.A.P.
(2) Mr. Riaz Ghani, Manager, M.C.B., I.A.P.
(3) Major Syed Salman Raza Zaidi, Security Manager, (North) P.I.A.
(4) Mr. Mahboob Saqib, Assistant Collector, Customs (Preventive), Islamabad Airport. and in the presence of the defendant.
(2) The defendant Mr. Inspector was clearly identified in , the recording, which clearly showed the above defendant taking money from the passengers. WITNESSED BY:
(1) Mr. Riaz Ghani, Manager, M.C.B., I.A.P. (Sd.)
(2) Major Syed Salman Raza Zaidi, Security Manager, (North), P.I.A. (Sd. )
(3) Mr. Mahboob Saqib, Assistant. Collector, Customs (Preventive), Islamabad Airport. (Sd.)
(4) Mr. Syed Nasar Bedar, A.D., FIA, I.A.P. (Sd.)
In presence of (Sd.)
(SHUJA SHAH), Deputy Collector & Authorised Officer."
' The Video Cassette was once more screened on 10-4-1985 in the presence of Gul Muhammad (respondent in C.A. No, 482 of 1988) when the following memo. Was prepared: - "The close circuit .T. V. Recording showing the defendant Mr. Gul Muhammad was screened in the presence of following officers/ witnesses.
' Mr. S.N. Bedar, A.D., FIA, I.A.P.
' Mr. Riaz Ghani, Manager, M.C.B., I.A.P.
' Major Syed Salman Raza Zaidi, Security Manager (North),P.I.A. Mr. Nadir Khan Hoti, A.C., I. A.P.
' Mr. Mahboob Saqib, Assistant Collector, Customs (Preventive), Islamabad Airport. ' and in the presence of the defendant.
2. The defendant Mr. Gul Muhammad, Inspector was clearly identified in the recording, which clearly showed the above defendant taking money from the passengers. WITNESSED BY.
(1) Mr. Riaz Ghani, Manager, M.C.B. I.A.P. (Sd.)
(2) Major Syed Salman Raza Zaidi, Security Manager, (North), P.I.A. (Sd.)
(3) Mr. Mahboob Saqib, Assistant Director.
Survey and Rebate. Rawalpindi. (Sd.)
(4) Mr. S.N. Bedar, A.D., FIA, I.A.P. (Sd.)
(5) Mr. Nadir Khan Hoti, A.C./I.A.P. (Sd.)
In presence of: (Sd.) (SHWA SHAH) Deputy Collector & Authorised Officer."
6. After the Video Cassettes had been screened each respondent was asked whether he had any further statement to make. The replies of the respondents were recorded on the screening memos as hereunder in respect of each respondent:-
(i) Mr. Saeedur Rahman "The reply to show-cause notice filed by him is his final reply. He does not require additional time."
(ii) Mr. Gul Muhammad "One week, as requested, after screening has been allowed w.e.f, 10-4-1985."
(iii) Mr. Amjad Hussain Shah ' No reply/order recorded on the screening memo.
(iv) Mr. Zahoor Ahmed Awan ' No reply/order recorded on the screening memo.
(v) Mr. Khalid Mahmood "He has been given additional time as requested vide reply to SCN, until 2nd March.
1985."
(vi) Mr. Jarar Ali Shah No reply/order recorded.
(vii) Mr. Mustajab Hussain No reply/order recorded.
(viii) Mr. Muhammad Hussain Bhatti No reply/order recorded.
(ix) Mr. Nazir Ahmad "He was informed, if he requires additional time. The defendant does not require additional time to file reply to SCN."
"I do not want any time to reply."
7. The copy of the report of the Assistant Collector Preventive referred to in the show-cause notice was not supplied to the respondents and the reason for it, whatsoever its worth, finds place in the final recommendations of the Authorised Officer in the following word s: - "As regards, the accused officers' demand for inquiry report is concerned, it could not be met as the Assistant Collector had reported against the accused Inspector, through an ordinary letter and there was no formal enquiry report in existence."
8. It was only during the course of the hearing of the appeal by the Service Tribunal that this report of the Assistant Collector, Preventive which is dated 29-1-1985 was placed on record. It reads as hereunder:- "SUBJECT: COMPLAINT AGAINST THE STAFF WORING AT THE AIRPORT, ISLAMABAD.
' Kindly refer to this office letter C. No,3054-55, dated 23-9-1984 on the above subject.
2. It is stated that the customs staff involved in above activities earlier reported, were M/s. Gul Muhammad, Aminullah, Mustajab Naqvi, Inspectors and Muhammad Safeer, Driver.
' In addition of these Customs Officers evidence against the following Inspectors is on the record.
The Inspectors are:-
(1) Mr. Fakharul Hasan. Inspector Excise.
(2) Mr. Saeedur Rehman. Inspector Airport.
(3) Mr. Khalid Mahmood. Inspector Traffic.
(4) Mr. Zahoor Awan. Inspector Traffic
(5) Mr. Nazir Ahmad. Inspector Traffic
(6) Mr. Jarar All Shah. Inspector Traffic
(7) Mr. Muhammad Hussain Bhatti; Inspector Traffic
(8) r. Amjad Hussain All Shah Inspector Traffic.
(9) Mr. Abdul Saboor U.D. Clerk.
(10) Mr. Abdullah Khan Sepoy ' As evidence against the above-named officials are on record, it is recommended that strict disciplinary action against them may please be taken.
(Sd.)
Assistant Collector 25-1-1985 ' Issue suspension orders in all cases. Please also issue SCN notice in consultation with A. C.(P)
Airport.
(Sd.)
29-1-1985."
9. The Authorised Officer by his report dated 24th/25th August, 1985 held that "the charges levelled and communicated in the show-cause notice stand established". No recommendation about the penalty was made. The reasoning which preceded was broadly in the following terms in all cases: - "The evidence screened in the presence of the defendant clearly showed the presence of the above witnesses and as certified in the witnessing memo dated ... . .. That the defendant ..... ....Inspector (under suspension) who was clearly identified by all the witnesses was shown in the recording taking money from the passengers."
10. On the 19th October, 1985, the Authority by a detailed order endorsed the finding of the Authorised Officer and imposed the penalty of dismissal or all the respondents by separate orders.
What the Authority did not notice in this order was the fact that all the four Cassettes of which no duplicates had been kept were clandestinely removed on 5-9-1985 from the custody of the Customs Authorities and a report (F.I.R. No, 610, Police Station Civil Lines, Rawalpindi dated 9-9- 1985) of its theft was lodged which ultimately resulted in acquittal of the accused because responsible officers of Customs cited as witnesses did not appear to prosecute the case and three out of four who appeared were declared hostile.
11. The respondents filed departmental appeals against the penalty imposed on them but as these were not disposed of, appeals were filed before the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the appeals, set aside the penalty, directed their reinstatement in service with all the back benefits.
Hence these appeals. The following are the main findings of the Tribunal:- "(i) No doubt, the screening of the T.V. Does display the actual scene of what is done, but that may not be a conclusive evidence in each and every matter.
(ii) It appears from the proceedings of the screening of the films that the objective impressions of the screening of the films recorded in a stereotype cyclostyled form, that certain person was clearly identified in the recording clearly showing him taking money from some passengers. As mentioned 'above, it is not indicated how many scenes of that nature of each appellant were actually exhibited.
(iii) The only evidence that allegedly involved the appellants has disappeared, That being the case, there is no tangible evidence before us to accept the findings of the Authorised Officer and the Authority that the appellants had indulged in taking money from the passengers unlawfully during the discharge of their duties as the Inspectors of Customs."
12. Section 164 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat, provides as hereunder:- "164. Production of evidence that has become available because of modern devices, etc.-- In such cases as the Court may consider appropriate, the Court may allow to be produced any evidence that may have become available because of modern devices or techniques."
13. The Tribunal has considered its evidentiary value in the following words: - "No doubt, the screening of the T.V. Does display the actual scene of what is done, but that may nct be a conclusive evidence in each and every matter."
' By making these observations the Tribunal has held such evidence to be admissible and also conclusive and sufficient in some cases but B not in all. This appears to be a correct statement of the law. While reviewing the finding the Tribunal found that (i) the only evidence that allegedly involved the appellants had disappeared; (ii) objective impressions of the screening of the films recorded in a stereotype cyclostyled, form that certain person was clearly identified in the recording clearly showing him taking money from some passengers;
(iii) it is not indicated how many scenes of that nature of each appellant were actually exhibited;
(iv) there is no tangible evidence before us (Tribunal) to accept the findings of the Authorised Officer and the Authority. These conclusions could on the facts of the case be drawn by the Service Tribunal. They suffer from no legal infirmity.
14. Mr. M. Bilal, the learned Deputy Attorney-General has on the strength of rule 5(1)(ii) and (iii) of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) contended that the Authorised Officer was competent to decide, whether shorter procedure of show-cause shall be adopted or not, and was ,not under clause
(iv) of the same sub-rule obliged or required to send the record of evidence and exhibits to the Authority. Instead he was to forward only his findings. The Authority could, therefore, even in the absence of the Video Cassettes endorse the findings and impose the penalty and so could have been done by the Service Tribunal as well, whether the Video Cassette was there or not.
15. It is correct that the Authorised Officer has to decide under the rules whether on the facts of the case, shorter procedure of a show-cause or the longer procedure of an inquiry shall be adopted in the case. He had taken a decision. None objected to it. The Service Tribunal found no fault with it. If the Video Cassette recorded all the facts necessary to establish the facts required to be proved then it was the appropriate course. That is a point which was not in controversy. What was in controversy was whether the Video Cassette by itself established those required facts. This could be verified by the Authority and the appellate Authority by viewing them.
16. As regards the second submission of the learned Deputy Attorney-General that the Authority was required to act and so was the Service Tribunal on the material enumerated in clause (iv) of sub-rule (1). Of rule 5 of the rules, that is, (i) the charge, (ii) the statement of allegation served on the accused, (iii) the explanation of the accused, (iv) the findings of the Enquiry Officer, or Inquiry Committee if appointed, (v) the recommendations of the Authorised Officer regarding the penalty to be imposed, and on no other material, we have a different opinion. Such an interpretation or view of the rule makes the word "case" used in that rule redundant. The "case" has to be forwarded to the Authority alongwith these enumerated documents. So the case cannot be the totality of the enumerated documents but some thing else too. Black's Law Dictionary defines "case" as "judicial proceedings for determination of a controversy between parties wherein rights are enforced or protected, or wrongs are prevented or redressed". The controversy, when it reached the Authority was confined to and centred round the evidentiary value of the Video Cassettes and the conclusiveness of it. The Authority had to exercise its independent judgment with regard to it. The Authority did not in these cases even take note of the fact that when the penalty , was being imposed the Video Cassettes were no longer available. An obvious omission exists in the report of the Authorised Officer also. He has not recommended the specific punishment to be imposed. He Was under the rules referred to required to mention it.
17. The Service Tribunal while hearing an appeal is possessed of the powers as enacted in section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act as hereunder:- "5. Powers of Tribunals: (1) A Tribunal may, on appeal, confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against.
(2) A Tribunal shall, for the purpose of deciding any appeal, be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have the same powers as are vested in such Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908), including the powers of--
(a) enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(b) compelling the production of documents;
(c) issuing commission for the examination of witnesses and documents."
18. This Court has hell in the case of F.A. Khan v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1964 SC 520 that "the legislature when it provides a hierarchy of Tribunals for the determination of a dispute, is really providing one complete procedure for such determination, proceedings before different tribunals being only steps in this procedure". In the case of M. Yamin Qureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another PLD 1980 SC 22 at page 36 this Court indicated the rights of the parties and the duties of the Service Tribunal in the following words:- "It goes without saying that it lies within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and, indeed, it is its obligation, to decide all questions of law and fact sought to be raised by the appellant to challenge the order cf his dismissal. Including his contention that no evidence was heard in his presence, nor was he given any opportunity to showcause against the proposed punishment.
' The appellant would be entitled not only to a full opportunity to present his case before the Tribunal, but also to inspect all relevant records which might have been taken into consideration by the competent authority for the purpose of passing the impugned order. As we see the legal position, the Tribunal has wide powers under section 5 of the Act, as it may on appeal confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against. Under subsection (2) of the same section, the Tribunal, for the purpose of deciding any appeal, is to be deemed to be a civil Court, and to have all the powers as are vested in such Courts under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including the power of enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; compelling the production of documents; and issuing Commission for the examination of witnesses and documents. We have no doubt that the Service Tribunal, presided over generally by a serving or a retired Judge of the High Court, would be able to do full justice to the appellant."
19. The Service Tribunal was, therefore, justified in attempting to resolve the issues requiring determination by referring to the Video Cassette or in its absence by other evidence. If the Video Cassette was the only evidence, the conclusive evidence, the ex facie proof of the guilt of. The respondents, then its absence alone should not have been made the basis of exonerating the respondents of the charges. The law on the subject, the duties of the appellate Court in the matter and the prevailing practice in the common law countries was discussed with great clarity in the case of Marakkarutti and others v. Veeran Kutty and others AIR 1923 Madras 647. The District Judge while hearing an appeal in that case was confronted with a situation where the record of many cases was destroyed in the Moplah rebellion and the District Judge had asked for directions of the High Court as to the proper course to adopt. This decision can be divided into four parts, the first relating to law and practice in common law countries, the second to possible alternatives in such situations, the third summarises the general principle deducible from first two and the fourth and the final, the disposal of the specific matter before the High Court. They are reproduced in this order hereunder:-
(i) "The English case that is quoted on the subject is Douglass v. Yallop (2 Burrows 722-97 E.R. 532).
The matter was more fully discussed in an American case, Mc London v . Jones 42 Am. Dec. 640, a judgment of the Court of Alabama which quoted and followed Douglas v. Yallop and a case which had been decided by the Supreme Court of New York; and that case points out, "Cases must frequently have occurred in which, by accident, the records of Courts of Justice have been destroyed or lost, and it would seem strange if the Common Law had provided no adequate means by which the injuries growing out of such accident could be averted or remedied," and then goes on to discuss the methods by which the remedy should be provided. I call attention to it because it states the matter more fully than the other reported cases. In this country the matter came before the Calcutta High Court in 1867 in Babu Guru Dayal Singh v. Durbaree Lal Tewaree (1867) 7 W.R. 18, a judgment of Sir Barnes Peacock, C.J. And Jackson, J. In that case records had been lost 'in transit from the first Court to the second; the second Court acted on some documents purporting to be office copies which the High Court held were not regularly proved or admitted. The Court held that there were two alternative courses open, to direct the lower appellate Court to receive such secondary evidence of the contents of original records as may be forthcoming, or to order an entirely new trial. It decided against the second alternative for very cogent reasons with which we agree. It directed the lower appellate Court to receive secondary evidence of the contents of the whole record, but, if not able thus to replace the record, that the parties should be at liberty to adduce further evidence and, on the record so reconstructed and supplemented, give judgment."
"(ii) The first thing to observe is that the appellant has, in order to get his appeal heard 'at all, to satisfy the Court what the record is of the case in which he has failed. He can come to the Court and say that he has tried to get the record which has been destroyed. He can then ask the Court to be allowed to reconstruct that record. It is then for the Court, if so minded--I say that because it is conceivable that the Court say, on the material at hand before it or on the appellant's application that no amount of reconstructing of the record would assist the appellant in his appeal--to permit the appellant to get the record reconstructed. The Court has not got to have the case reheard. The respondent is entitled to the benefit of having the judgment which he has got in his favour on the original hearing. It may be that, in reconstructing the record, the Court will have to go very near to rehearing, but the Court will always have to apply its mind to ascertain not what the rights of the parties were, but what the destroyed record of the suit was and on that record, when reconstructed, it will have to act on the ordinary principles on which it would have acted if the original record had been before it. It will be for the Judge to whom the application is made to decide how the reconstruction of the record is to be attempted--affidavits, counter-affidavits, the hearing of witnesses and the admission of copies are all methods which he can in a proper case allow. He will, of course, get the best evidence available.
(iii) There is inherent power in every Court to reconstruct its own records and I think it follows that there is inherent power in the Appellate Court to reconstruct the records of the Court from which an appeal lies to it. This power has been recognized in England and in America, which follows the English Common Law, and also in this country.
(iv) In the case at present before us, we have the District Munsif's judgment still existing, and he states on several matters the facts that were proved before him, and it is very clear that his statement as a contemporaneous statement of what took place before him or statement made at any rate a short time after it had taken place will be as good evidence as can be obtained and in all probability better than any other. In the event of the appellate Judge being unable to reconstruct the record to his satisfaction, it must be borne in mind that the onus is on the appellant to establish his grounds of appeal and on the respondent his cross-objections, if any."
20. It follows, therefore, that the mere loss or destruction of the Video Cassette could not by itself be sufficient to exonerate the respondents of the charges competently framed and properly enquired into. If it were so it will encourage and reward criminality and subversion of orderly and established procedures of the Authorities and Institutions. At the same time the conclusions drawn by Authorised Officer which are intended by law to be properly tested and fully verified by the Authority and the Appellate Tribunal cannot be allowed to stand as dixit simply because the main evidence with regard to it is lost or destroyed. Therefore, the proper course and the only course open to the Service Tribunal, if it decided not to reconstruct the lost evidence itself, was to have remanded the matter to the Authorised Officer for deciding afresh whether in view of the changed circumstances, still resort to the shorter procedure is desirable or full-fledged inquiry into the allegation will be more appropriate. Thereafter to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law by reconstructing the lost evidence as best as is possible in the circumstances. We would, therefore, while partially accepting these appeals refuse the reinstatement of the respondents in service with back benefits and instead substitute it by a direction to the Authorised Officer in terms indicated. The result will be that the judgment of the Service Tribunal setting aside their dismissal will remain intact but not the order of their restoration to office with back benefits. The. Authorised Officer shall deal with the matter de novo. There shall be no order as to costs.
21. In concluding these appeals, we cannot help noticing certain features of the case which are alarming and which deserve a thorough probe by the Federal Government at an appropriate level.
In the first place the close Circuit T.V. System is an invaluable aid to monitor and record unobtrusively the performance of the various functionaries covered by it. It is good and substantial evidence. It enables prompt and effective remedial measures. Why in these cases things were allowed to continue unattended, unabated for eighteen months without any action having been taken? According to the allegations the culprits were identified, their delinquencies had been recorded and photographed, fleecing of the passengers, travelling on international flights was widely taking place yet the monitoring and supervising officers delayed the disciplinary and remedial action for such a long time. After all why was there such a callously permissive attitude on the part of those who should have known better, should have reacted differently. Secondly, why were not the duplicates or copies of the Video Cassettes prepared by the mechanical processes.
This was neither expensive nor technically tedious. It appears that a calculated risk for no obvious or plausible reason was taken. Thirdly, knowing the importance of these Video Cassettes, and the prize that they were, their safe custody, it appears, was not properly ensured. How could pilfering from such a custody take place is itself somewhat surprising and what is more the mere registration of a criminal case was considered sufficient in the matter. Fourthly and this is important for the establishment of rule of law in the country mandated by the Constitution, why did the higher and the responsible officer of the department fail to respond to the process of the Special Judge duly served on him when called up to testify in the theft case and that case ended in straight acquittal on the ground of no evidence. The record of the Special Judge shows that following order was recorded on 21-11-1987:- "State v. Mushtaq Hussain etc. Page No, 5.
Present: Rao Furqan Ahmad AD for the State and all the three accused on bail. Two witnesses Mirza Zafar Baig and Sabir Hussain are present and their statements have been recorded as P.W.1 and P.W.2. The A.D.A. States that Riaz Hussain, Collector Customs is very material witness. He is absent despite personal service. However, I abstain from issuing warrants of arrest against him. Now Riaz Hussain Naqvi P.W. Will be summoned for 19-12-1987.
(Sd.)
Dated 21-11-1987 Special Judge Central, Ra walpindi. "
22. All these four features, individually and collectively, reflect a state of affairs which in any system will require a most thorough scrutiny, and where necessary an effective remedial measure to fully control such persistent institutional aberration. With that object in view, we direct that a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Establishment Division of the Federal Government through the Justice .Division.