JUSTICE (RTD) MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, (CHAIRMAN):-Appellant Muhammad Sadiq was a Police Inspector and S.H.O, at Police Station Pano Akil, District, Sukkur when he was placed under suspension by DIG's Order dated 20.2.1989. Thereafter he was charge sheeted and served with a statement of allegations containing as many as eight charges, which related to the acts of omission and commission attributed to the appellant indicating that he spoiled the case arising from the FIR No.198/88 u/ss 302/506/323 PPC registered by the SIP Shibah Hyder. The appellant submitted his reply categorically denying the allegations made against him. Mr. Sikandar Ali Soomro DSP Sukkur was appointed as enquiry officer to hold detailed enquiry against the appellant. In course of the enquiry several witnesses were examined. Ultimately the enquiry officer complied his report in the light of the material produced before him, holding the appellant guilty of only one charge. Disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the DIGP did not accept his recommendations with regard to imposition of minor penalty on the appellant. Instead he awarded to him major penalty of reduction in rank. The appellant preferred departmental appeal to the IGP who vide his order dated 16.8.1990 rejected the same. He then brought the present service appeal before this Tribunal.
2. We heard M/s. Shaikh Fazal Din and Muhammad Akram in support of the appeal and Mr. Zawar Hussain Shah, AAG on behalf of the official respondents. In course of their arguments the learned counsel for the appellant submitted, a statement in writing, also signed by the appellant, mentioning therein that the appellant did not press the appeal on merits but instead prayed for reduction in penalty as proposed by the Enquiry Officer.
In view of the aforesaid Statement submitted on the appellant's behalf, it would be futile to go into the detailed discussion of merits of the case. Accordingly we should confine ourselves to the appellant's prayer for reduction in the penalty. In this connection reference may be made to the operative part of the Enquiry Officer's report, which reads as under:- "In view of the above facts it is observed that only allegation No.6 is proved against the defaulter Inspector Muhammad Sadiq for which it is recommended that he may be awarded a minor punishment of the stoppage of one year's increment, falling due on 1.12.1989, without commulative effect as laid down in para 4 (a)(iii) of Sind Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988".
It is clear from the above observations of the Enquiry Officer that he recommended awarding of minor penalty because out of eight allegations which initially formed the basis of the enquiry, only one allegation (No.6) was proved against the appellant. In order to appreciate the enquiry officer's recommendation it may be pertinent to pin point the allegation No.6 and the Enquiry Officer's findings thereon. The allegation No.6 contained in the statement of allegations is reproduced as under:- "6. I.O.SHO Ch. Muhammad Sadiq secured crime weapon as country made Pistol from accused Younis Bhullo on 3.8.1988, whereas he was arrested" on 31.7.1988, thus recovery was made after 3 days without any cause. Though P.Ws Muhammad Bux, Mst. Saran, Pathan, Ali Murad and others disclosed in their 161 Cr.P.C, statements, as well as in their 164 Cr.P.C. Statements, that accused Younis Bullo had gun. Thus version of eye witnesses was rebutted by recovery of crime weapon as country made Pistol from the accused."
While discussing the above allegation in his report, the Enquiry Officer noted to things; one, the appellant secured country made Pistol from accused Younis Bullo, instead of the gun the witnesses saw the culprits carrying at the the of commission of the offence and, to, the said recovery of the weapon was made from the said accused after three days from his arrest. The accused was arrested on 31.7.1988 whereas recovery was made from him on 3.8.1988. Thereafter the Enquiry Officer recorded his findings as under:- "Thus the I/O instead of recovery of a gun secured country made Pistol from the accused though the recovery of an un-licensed fire arm is good for which a separate case was registered at this P.S. And sent up in the court of law, yet I/O must have insisted upon the recovery of crime weapon viz gun, but the I/O had failed in this direction. He has however mentioned in C.D. No.13 dated 13.8.1988 that the licensed gun belonging to brother of Younis Bullo had already been deposited at P.S. Hence this allegation is proved against him."
3. As stated above the allegation No.6 which the Enquiry Officer held as proved consists in to parts.
Of course that part of the allegation which speaks of the recovery of the country made Pistol three days after arrest of the accused certainly reflects on the efficiency of the appellant in as much as that no plausible explanation was furnished by him as to why he wasted three days before making the recovery. So far the other part of the allegation is concerned we feel that the appellant was not to blame if the gun was not recovered from the accused Younis. However as disclosed in the Enquiry Report, the licensed gun belonging to his brother had already been taken into custody. In any way the gun recovery was of no legal consequence unless it, was proved that the recovered gun had actually been fired or in any manner used at the the of commission of the crime. Such proof may be in the shape of injury caused to any witness or recovery of pellets of the cartridge fired from the gun. No such evidence was however forth coming in this case. Thus the appellant was liable to punishment, if at all, for the delay he made in securing the Pistol from the accused Younis.
4. No doubt the DIGP disagreed with the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. But he has assigned no reason, much less the plausible one, for his disagreement with the Enquiry Officer. On the other hand we have gone through the Enquiry Report and have found that the Enquiry Officer has thoroughly discussed the evidence on each charge and has come to right conclusions thereon.
5. For the above reasons we are in full agreement with the Enquiry Officer that minor penalty of stoppage of one year's increment due to appellant on 1.12.1989 would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs. The major penalty of reduction in rank is hereby substituted by minor penalty of stoppage of annual increment due to the appellant w.e.f. 1.12.1989 without cumulative effect.
Given under our hands and the seal of this Tribunal 31st day of October, 1990.