1. MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--In this appeal the prayer of the appellant, Mirza Muhammad Yousif, is that order of his compulsory retirement dated 27-3-1988 passed by the S.S.P. Central District, Karachi be set aside and consequential relief be awarded to him.
2. The appellant was serving as A.S.-I. at Police Station Liaquatabad, Karachi when disciplinary proceedings were taken out against him. To begin with he was served with charge-sheet and statement of allegations. The allegations made against him were as follows: "On 3-1-1988 between 1845 and 1900 hrs, a robbery had taken place at Al-Mizan Jewellers, S.M.
3. Taufiq Road, in which the robbers decamped with jewellery. While escaping they shot in the air a number of times. You, A.S.-I. Mirza Muhammad Yousif of Liaquatabad P.S. were on police mobile hardly a hundred yards from the place of robbery and firing, but you deliberately avoided taking counter measures or chasing the robbers after they had fired and escaped in a car. The car had earlier been lifted from Gulbahar Area and its registration number had also been fed to you but you also failed to detect the lifted vehicle.
4. This act shows extreme cowardice, dereliction of duty, inefficiency and negligence of .duty on your part."
5. The appellant submitted his reply denying the above allegations. As his explanation was found unsatisfactory, a regular enquiry was ordered to be held against him. Mr. Abdul Sattar Sheikh, D.S.P. was appointed as Enquiry Officer. He examined a number of witnesses in course of the enquiry and afforded full opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the said witnesses and present his defence, if any. On conclusion of the enquiry he submitted his report holding the appellant guilty of the charges. On receipt of the enquiry report final show-cause notice was given to the appellant.
6. He was also heard personally. Thereafter the impugned order was passed and major penalty of compulsory retirement was awarded to the appellant.
7. The appellant challenged the order of his compulsory retirement in departmental appeal, filed before the D.I.-G.P., who by his order dated 13th August, 1988 rejected the appeal. After the rejection of his departmental appeal the appellant filed the present appeal before this Tribunal on 8-9-1988.
8. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the Government. After making some headway in the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted a statement in writing signed by him and the appellant, stating therein that he did not press the appeal on merits but instead prayed for reduction of the penalty, which was too severe in the circumstances of the case, inter alia on the grounds mentioned in the said statement.
9. The learned Govt. counsel obviously impressed by the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, endorsed his no objection on the said statement to reduction of the penalty.
10. It was admitted in course of the arguments that the shop of Al-Mizan Jewellers where robbery was committed was not within the area of operations assigned to Mobile Patrolling Team No,1 headed by the appellant. The said Team was to patrol from Gujarnala No,4 to Bandhani Colony Liaquatabad. On the other hand, it was conceded by the learned Govt. counsel that similar other Mobile Team headed by S.I Abdul Razzaq P.S. Liaquatabad was also on patrol at the time of incident and the scene of offence fell within the jurisdiction of that Team. The learned Government counsel also informed that the Patrol Mobile Team led by Abdul Razzaq was nearer to the place of incident than the Team headed by the appellant. Furthermore it was not denied that Abdul Razzaq's Team arrived at the place of occurrence almost within minutes of the departure of the robbers and it was thereafter that the appellant's Team was intimated and alerted on wireless set by S.I. Abdul Razzaq. Although the charge against the appellant was that his Team was only one hundred yards away from the scene of offence, yet appellant's own version was that his Team was at pretty long distance, not less than one mile from the place of occurrence. Apart from this all the nine witnesses examined in the course of the enquiry have admittedly not incriminated the appellant nor their evidence indicates that the appellant after receiving the wireless message showed any indifference or lethargy proving thereby his inefficiency and negligence. On the contrary the appellant's claim was that he did what he could do in the circumstances of the cases.
11. According to him he rushed after the offenders but somehow they could not be located. In the same way the other Team headed by S.I. Abdul Razzaq also showed no results.
12. ' In any case since the appeal has not been pressed by the appellant on merits, he would be held to have admitted his liability to the charge. However his grievance was that he had been subjected to discrimination, as no action was taken against the S.I. Abdul Razzaq or any one of his Team who were principally responsible for the area where the robbery took place. No doubt according to S.I.
13. Abdul Razzaq's own showing, not only the scene of offence situated within the area of his operations but his Team was nearer the said place at the time of occurrence, so much so that they reached there in no time but of course after the departure of the thieves. This was net denied even by the learned Govt. counsel. Thus S.I. Abdul Razzaq and his Team were equally responsible for the failure to trace out the robbers. It was rather surprising that though the appellant was made to face departmental proceedings, S.I. Abdul Razzaq was not touched and he went entirely unscathed. The learned Govt. counsel fully shared the surprise and expressed his inability to give explanation, muchless satisfactory one, as to why S.I. Abdul Razzaq and his Team were spared.
14. In the above circumstances we are inclined to feel that the penalty awarded to the appellant was rather arbitrary and harsh. He was obviously deprived of the only source of his and his family's livelihood. Even if we reject the appellant's version that he did everything in his power to locate the thieves, as untrue, yet in view of the admitted position that no action whatever was taken against the other Team headed by S.I. Abdul Razzaq, the extreme penalty of compulsory retirement awarded to the appellant was highly unjustified. Apart from above, we cannot overlook that appellant had put in more than 26 years of service, during which he had admittedly earned a number of commendatory awards.
15. ' Considering all the above factors we are of the view that the penalty awarded to the appellant calls for reduction. Since he has admitted the charge of inefficiency, dereliction in duty and negligence it would not be appropriate to restore him to the rank and status of A.S.I. Accordingly while maintaining the findings of the appellant's being guilty of the charges made against him, we reduce the penalty awarded to him and convert the same into reduction to lower post of Head Constable for the period beginning from the date of impugned order i,e, 27-3-1988 and ending on 30th June, 1990. Subject to the said alteration in the penalty, the appeal is partly accepted with no order as to costs.