JUSTICE (RTD.) MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, Chairman.- In this appeal, Syed Irshad Ahmed, former ASI has challenged the order dated 23-4-1992 of the SP. Sindh Reserve Police Gulshan Base-II, Karachi, whereby he was dismissed from service. The impugned order was passed in the factual background which may briefly be narrated as follows. Consequent from his selection through the competitive examination, the appellant 4 was appointed as ASI on 1-1-1987. Immediately after his appointment he was sent for necessary training at Police Training School, Baldia Complex. But before passing out prade, marking the completion of the training, the services of 12 ASI's including the appellant were terminated by order dated 7th December, 1987. Some how six of the said ASI's were reinstated one day prior to the Passing Out Prade held on 24-12-1987. As a result of his departmental appeal dated 13-1-1988 against the termination of his services the appellant was also reinstated in service but after lapse of more than two years by order dated 11-7-1990.
2. Subsequently by his letter dated 14-2-1991, the DIGP required as many as seven ASI's including the appellant specified in the letter, to undergo probationary course for one year at Shahdadpur.
Since the appellant had already done the requisite training at Baldia Training School, Karachi, he questioned the DIGPs order in departmental appeal which he submitted to all the three respondents (e.g.IGP, DIGP and SP). But none of them considered his said appeal. However the appellant alleged by continued to perform his duties at the site. Camp Office-Gulshan Base II.
Karachi. Meanwhile be kept on sending reminders in continuation of his departmental appeal but all in vain. To his surprise, the appellant was first placed under suspension on 18-2-1992 and thereafter he was served with show-cause notice dated 9-4-1992. The appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 16-4-1992 and was given personal hearing on 22-4-1992. He was ultimately dismissed by the impugned order which was delivered to the appellant on 19-5-1991.
Once again he filed departmental appeal from the said order and after waiting for statutory period of 90 days for decision thereon, the appellant has filed the present appeal on 20-9-1992.
3. We heard with the due patience, the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance went through the entire relevant record available in the case file.
The appellant was dismissed from service by the SP's order dated 23-4-1992 which is reproduced as under: "P/A.S.I. Syed Irshad Ahmed of this unit was deputed to undergo . Intermediate Course w.e.f. 14-2- 1991 at PTS. Shahdadpur vide T.P. Message No.SRP/Admn-2631-37 dated 14-2-1991. Officer did not report at P.T.S. Shahdadpur and remained absent. He was placed under suspension on 18-2-1992 vide order No.SRP/G. Base-II/Admn- 862-63/92 dated 18-2-1992 and issued Show Cause Notice vide ' No.SRP/SITE C.Base. II-Admn-1460 dated 9-4-1992. He submitted reply to Show Cause Notice that after nomination of course he had submitted appeal/representation against the orders to O.I.G.P./SRP.I. G.P./Home Secretary and was awaiting for the decision.
2/- His written as well as verbal explanation reply during personal hearing has been found unsatisfactory, that is very much clear he disobeyed orders for reporting at P.T.S. Shahdadpur, remained absent more than one year. This prove the charge.
Therefore the defaulter ASI is awarded a major punishment i.e. "DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE" under rules 4(b)(iv) of Sindh Police (P&D) Rules 1988. No salary will be paid from the period he remained absent. He is further directed to deposit salaries he had drawn with deceitful means during the period he remained absent."
It is clear from the above order that the appellant was awarded the major penalty of dismissal because of his disobedience of the DIGP's order contained in the T.P. Message dated 14-2-1991. On perusal of the said message, it was disclosed that the appellant and several other ASI's whose names were specified in the message were required to do probationary course of ASI's at PTS, Shahdadpur.
4. The appellant's first contention raised by his learned counsel in course of the arguments was that he was never relieved of his duties at Karachi so as to enable him -to join the requisite course at Shahdadpur. According to the learned counsel, the appellant contained to perform the duties at his posting of Karachi until he was placed under suspension. No doubt the appellant has taken the plea on the above lines in paras 9 & 10 of his memo of appeal, but his plea has been vehemently denied in para 9 of the written statement filed on behalf of the official respondents. The relevant portion of the said para reads as under: "His contention that he was not discharged from his working place for Shahdadpur and after submitting of his departmental appeals against order training be continuously used to perform his duties at SITE CAMP/Gulshan Base.II is totally false. The facts are that he alongwith others were ordered to proceed to Shahdadpur to join the Probationary ASI's course of training, vide order No.T.P.Message No.SRP Admn-2831-37 dated 14-2-1991...He accordingly was relieved of his duties vide station diary Annex 'C' and he himself made entry of his deputation for PTS for above said training vide copy attached as Annexure 'D\ Thereafter he never came to SITE Camp/Gulshan Base.II for any duty except for collection of his monthly salaries which were being paid to him as is done in the cases of other trainees at PTS/SHD under the impression that he was undergoing training at the PTS..... "
Apart from the respondent's categorical refutation of the appellant's plea hereinabove, the reply furnished by the appellant in response to the show-cause notice was also absolutely silent in that regard. Had the appellant not been relieved from the duties at Karachi, he would have certainly mentioned this fact in his reply to the a show cause notice. Moreover it looked absurd that despite the DIGP's clear directions for the specified ASIS including the appellant to do probationary course at Shahdadpur, the relevant police authorities of Karachi would dare defy the said directions and that too only in the case of the appellant. As pointed out above, the appellant has stated in para 9 of his memo of appeal that he had filed departmental appeal against DIGP's direction contained in the T.P. Message dated 14-2-1991. Such statement on his part raised a presumption that not only the aforesaid message was served on him but it was also implemented by relieving the appellant of his duties at karachi. For the above reasons we see no truth in the arguments that the appellant was never relieved of his duties at Karachi to join the course at Shahdadpur and that he continued to perform his duties at Karachi even after the receipt of T.P. Message containing the DIGP's order.
5. Then next point for consideration is whether in compliance of the DIGPs order, the appellant joined the probationary course at Shahdadpur. It is the appellant's own case that even after receipt of the DIGP's order contained in T.P.Message, he continued to perform his duties at Karachi. In other words he admitted though indirectly that he never complied with the DIGP's aforesaid order, nor he joined the ASI's probationary course at Shahdadpur. But yet he had the daring to continue to draw his salary from Karachi Base. When the learned Government Counsel, was confronted with this situation, he explained on the basis of the assistance provided to him by departmental representative present in the court at the time of the arguments, that as mentioned in para 9 of the written statement, the appellant was continued to be paid monthly salaries under the impression that he had joined at PTS Shahdadpur and was doing the course. The learned Govt, counsel made rather startling disclosure in the course of his arguments that the appellant's failure to join at the PTS, Shahdadpur came to the notice of the authorities when on completion of the course, they received the list of the trainees from which the appellant's name was conspicuously missing. Thus the appellant's disobedience of the DIGP's order was amply established. His learned counsel attempted in vain to show to us that the appellant was legally justified in not joining the PTS, Shahdadpur for the specified course. His argument was that since he had already done the prescribed course at PTS, Baldia Complex Karachi, he was under no legal obligation to do any further course at Shahdadpur. The appellant has taken this plea in para 8 of his memo of appeal.
The reply to his said plea is contained in corresponding para of the written statement, the relevant portion whereof reads as under: "Since the appellant had remained absent from the department for about 3 years due to his discharge from service on 7-12-1987 and since his attendance in PTS/Baldia from 1-1-1987 to 6-12- 1987 had rexamined unsatisfactory, the IGP in lawful exercise of his discretionary powers and in the large interest of the department as well as betterment of the appellant had rightly ordered him and his other similar reinstated colleagues to undergo the full course of training afresh at PTS/Shahdadpur"
We are satisfied from the above stand taken by the respondents in the written statement that the appellant and his colleagues were rightly required to do the ASI's probationary course afresh at PTS, Shahdadpur. Even the appellant by his admission vide paras 6 & 7 of his memo of appeal has lent support to the respondent's said stand. He has admitted that he was removed from service on 7-12-1987 and reinstated on 11-7-1990, indicating there by that he was out of service for more than two years. The learned counsel for the appellant was unable show us how and which rules, were violated by the DIGP's order, directing the appellant and his colleagues to do the probationary course afresh at P.T.S. Shahdadpur. Accordingly we hold that the appellant had no legal excuse for disobeying the DIGP's order.
6. Lastly it was contended by the appellant's learned counsel that as detailed enquiry was not held, the impugned order was not sustainable. Obviously the argument was without any force. Detailed enquiry is invariably held only to prove the charges against accused official. In the instant case the only charge against the appellant was that he had disobeyed the DIGP's order contained in the T.P.
Message dated 14-2-1991. As has been held above, the disobedience of the order was proved by the appellant's own admission. He himself has admitted that he did not join the ASI's probationary course at PTS, Shahdadpur as required by the DIGP's order dated 14-2-1991. No further evidence was needed in proof of the above charge. Therefore holding of detailed enquiry was not called for.
In view of the above discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
Consequently the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.