1. MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN): --This appeal arose from the ugly incident involving the appellant Chaudhry Anwar Ali, the then S.H.O., P.S. Pak Colony, Karachi West, on one hand and Dr. Zain Ali Shaikh, D.S,P. On the other. The said incident is pertinently reflected in para. 2 of the grounds of action accompanying the show-cause notice dated 31-12-1992 served on the appellant The para 2 hereinabove reads as under:-- "The D.S.P. Went in S.H.O's. Office where you were sitting in plain clothes keeping your both legs on the table and indulging in chit chat with civil persons. You remained oblivious of the presence of the DSP and did not pay him due respect and did not bother even to offer him a chair. You showed sign of annoyance of his presence and talked to him in a casual way as though you were talking to a subordinate and when the D.S.P. Made you realise the importance of the matter for which he had come to the P.S. To discuss the same with you. You talked to him in a discourteous way rather rudely and there ensued an ugly situation in which not only you abused him in filthy language but also tried to hit him with a shaft and when you were stopped from doing so, you threw paper weight which hit the D.S.P. On the shoulder. You went further to such an extent that you caught hold of the D.S.P. (U/T) by the collar and pushed him violently. His (D.S.P.'s) gunman who entered in your office at that time. Was also pushed and his gun was snatched. One of the persons in plain clothes aimed at the D.S.P. With the gun and threatened to get out or he would be put behind the bars."
2. The appellant categorically denied the above allegations in his elaborate reply to the show-cause notice. On the contrary he came out with counter-version of the incident, as would be evident from the relevant portion of his reply, which is reproduced as under:-- " On seeing him I immediately stood up, paid him proper respect and salute as required in civil dress, left my chair and requested him to have a seat on my chair as usual. Mr. Zain Ali Shaikh (U/T) seated on my chair and in presence of civilian members of union from Shershah mentioned above, and P.S. Staff in very insulting manner asked me as to why I had conveyed wrong information to him that I am not present at the P.S. I tried to explain that I have just arrived at the P.S. And further I requested him to what service I can render for him. He became furious, started shouting and abusing me in un-parliamentary language saying that you are a liar and I know what is going on in your area during the last 2/3 months. When I tried to explain him that have taken over charge as S.H.O. Only 3 days back, he became more furious saying that you are a liar and I know what abusing continued. In this connection it is submitted that no offence whatsoever had been committed by me and there was no reason to abuse or insult or shout upon me by Mr. Zain Ali Shaikh, Mr. Zain Ali Shaikh had become so much furious that he called his gunman and ordered him to teach me a lesson and also said what he thinks himself. On this the gunman caught hold of me, from collar and tried to manhandle me but to the intervention of civilians present in my office and the P.S. Staff the situation was controlled "
3. After giving personal hearing to the appellant, the D.I.-G.P., Karachi vide his order dated 12-4-1993 reverted the appellant to his substantive rank of Sub-Inspector. The appellant challenged the order of his reversion in the departmental appeal filed before the I: G.P., who by his order dated 29-6-1993 rejected the said appeal. Thereafter, the appellant filed the present appeal on 17-7-1993.
4. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel of the appellant and the learned Assistant Advocate-General. We also went through the relevant documents.
5. As disclosed in the show-cause notice holding of departmental enquiry was not considered necessary and therefore no such enquiry was held. Instead the appellant was served with show- cause notice accompanied by grounds of action. It was however, admitted on both sides, that before giving show-cause notice to the appellant, a preliminary probe was made about the incident. It was in the light of the enquiry report that followed the said early probe, the appellant was given the above show-cause notice. But the material collected during the said preliminary enquiry was admittedly not supplied to the appellant either at the time of giving him show-cause notice or before or after the said notice. Moreover the procedure contained in the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1908 does not provide for any such preliminary enquiry which even if held, had no legal value. It was rather interesting to note that even though as indicated in the show-cause notice, holding of .Enquiry was ruled out, yet in the last para of the impugned order Whereby the appellant was punished, it was clearly mentioned that the appellant's reversion was based on the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer. The appellant's learned counsel showed ignorance about the existence any such recommendations particularly when departmental enquiry was never held. According to the learned counsel a copy of enquiry report or above recommendations was never supplied to the appellant. When we enquired from the learned A.A.-G.
6. He too frankly conceded that since regular departmental enquiry was never held, the above reference in the punishment order was perhaps to the preliminary enquiry which had proceeded the service of show-cause notice on the appellant. Accordingly we are of the view that punishment of the appellant which accused to be based on the preliminary enquiry not provided in the aforesaid rules, was illegal and could not be upheld.
7. Apart from above, it is provided in sub-rule (4) of rule 6 of the aforesaid rules that if no enquiry was held, the competent authority, on receipt of the explanation of the accused official, if any, had to determine if the allegations made against him were proved, and it was only on proof of the allegations that the accused official could be awarded one or more of the prescribed penalties. In the instant case the allegations contained in the show-cause notice were categorically denied by the appellant in his reply to the show-cause notice. On the contrary he came out with the counter- version of the incident, laying the entire blame at the door steps of the such concerned. There is absolutely no evidence on record to substantiate the allegations made against the appellant. How then the in the face of two conflicting versions of the same incident the competent authority could reach the conclusion that the allegations made against the appellant were proved? After all there should be some basis for his conclusions as to the appellant's guilt. Faced with two versions diagonal each other, the punishing authority was not justified to accept the version of the D.S.P. To be true, arbitrarily rejecting the appellant's version out right as being unreliable. He has given no reasons, muchless the cogent ones, for his choice. He was expected to judge the authenticity of any of the versions judiciously and not arbitrarily. We find no justification for the conclusions arrived at by the punishing authority. This is because in absence of detailed enquiry it was difficult to evaluate the comparative merits of the two various or in other words shift chaff from the grain in order to arrive at correct conclusion. Consequently the impugned order of the appellant's .Reversion cannot be upheld. .
8. For above reasons we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order with no order as to costs. However, we feel that this is a case in which the appellant should not be cleared only on the basis of legal flaws noted above but a thorough enquiry be held strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the aforesaid rules. We, therefore, remand the case back to the concerned authorised officer with directions to proceed afresh, ensuring due compliance of the relevant provisions of the abovesaid rules.