1. This appeal was started with service of show-cause notice dated 11-10---1992 on the appellant, Allah Dino who was then serving as A.S.I. Police Lines, Larkana. The allegations contained in the show-cause notice are: "There is general complaint that you are mixed up with criminals". The appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice, making categorical denial of the allegations mentioned therein. Thereafter after giving the personal hearing to the appellant, the S.S.P. Larkana passed an order dated 2-11-1992 whereby appellant was removed from service.
2. Aggrieved by this order the appellant went in departmental appeal dated 24-11-1992 before the D.I: G.P., Larkana. As no decision was taken by the D.I.-G.P. On his departmental appeal during the statutory period of 90 days, the appellant filed the present appeal on 18-3-1993.
3. Mr. Illahi Bakhsh M. Kehar appearing for the appellant submitted his arguments in support of the pleas raised in the appeal whereas Abdul Latif Ansari, AA. -G. Argued the case on behalf of the official-respondents. With the assistance of the said learned counsel we also went through the documents relevant for disposal of the appeal.
4. Like many other cases of police personnel disposed of by this Tribunal, this case too is based on stereotype allegations reproduced above. Obviously the allegations are vague and general in nature. Moreover, the appellant has denied the said allegations. It is an admitted position that the Departmental Authorities have taken no efforts to prove the allegations despite the appellant's categorical denial of the same. No detailed enquiry has been held nor the appellant was supplied any other material in support of the allegations made against him when he was served with show- cause notice or even thereafter. As provided in sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of the Sindh Police (E&D)
5. Rules, 1988 when no enquiry is held, the `Authority' on receipt of explanation of the accused official, has to determine if the charge made against him has been proved and in case it has been proved, the `Authority' may proceed to award one or more punishments to him. The question arose if the charges made against the appellant had been proved, so that the competent authority was in a position to punish the appellant. As already stated above the charges are vague and general in nature. No other material has been produced in proof of the allegations. Therefore, we are of the view that in the circumstances explained above it cannot be held that the charges made against the accused official had been proved. The learned A.A: G. Is also constrained to share our view.
6. Incidentally we put a question to the learned AA--G. That since so many cases of Police Department based on such vague and general allegations have failed, why the Police Authorities were not advised to first collect specific and authentic material against any police official before taking out departmental proceedings against him. His reply that he had already sounded the said authorities in this connection in writing. We feel that in cases of present nature the departmental authorities should do more home work before initiating disciplinary proceedings against the accused officials or else not only the whole labour involved in the departmental proceedings was wasted but also there was loss of valuable time and money.
7. In view of the above discussion the impugned order whereby the appellant has been removed from service cannot be legally sustained. As such the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside with no order as to costs. However, we leave it open to the Police Authorities to start fresh proceedings against the appellant if they have specific and reliable evidence in their possession to prove the allegations against him, though these observations should not be considered as binding on the said Authorities.