1. K.B, DODANI (MEMBER).---This appeal is directed against the dismissal from service of the appellant Mahboob Ali Kazi. As disclosed in the memo of appeal, he joined police service as Police Constable and having performed 9 years of service as such, he was served with a show-cause notice vide letter dated 8-7-1991. The allegation made in the show-cause notice consisted two parts, first allegation was that the appellant "enjoyed a reputation of being mixed up with the criminals" and second allegation was that the appellant's previous record- showed that he was involved/challaned in five heinous cases. The appellant submitted his reply which was found unsatisfactory and the S.S.P., Larkana appointed Mr. Hameedullah Khan Bhugti, D.S.P./S.D.P.O., Shahdadkot as Enquiry Officer (hereinafter termed as E.O.) vide his office later dated 8-12-1991 to conduct regular departmental enquiry. The E.O. After holding enquiry submitted his report vide letter dated 26-1-1992 and gave his opinion, which is reproduced as under: "After going through the entire enquiry file I am of the opinion that the defaulter PC/381 Mehboob Ali is innocent in the allegations in the show-cause notice vide No. R/CR/7594-95, dated 8-7-1991, the same may kindly be vacated and he may be reinstated in service."
2. The S.S.P., Larkana on the basis of findings of the said enquiry report vacated the charges levelled against the appellant and reinstated him to duty, treating suspension period from 29-6-1991 to 1-2- 1992 as duty vide his order dated 10-2-1992. After couple of months of the abovementioned vacation of the aforementioned show-cause notice the appellant was served with a fresh show-- cause notice dated 22-4-1992 mentioning therein the same allegations, which he, replied vide letter dated 6-5-1992 and no decision whatsoever on the show-- cause notice dated 22-4-1992 has been conveyed to the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant was served with a show-cause notice (say third) vide letter dated 13-8-1992, which is the subject-matter of this appeal. The allegations contained in this show-cause notice read as under: Ground of action.---There is general complaint that you are mixed up with criminals."
3. The appellant submitted his reply to the third show-cause notice vide his letter dated 15-9-1992, making categorical denial of the allegations made therein. Thereafter the S.S.P., Larkana issued an Order dated 2-11-1992, whereby the appellant was awarded major (penalty). Aggrieved by this order the appellant preferred a departmental appeal before the D.I-G.P., Larkana, who after going through the relevant record did not find reasons to differ with the orders passed by the S.S.P., Larkana and therefore rejected the appeal vide his order dated 15-12-1993, hence the appellant filed the present appeal on 27-12-1993.
4. We heard Mr. M.M. Kazi for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari, AA.-G. On behalf of official respondents. With the assistance of the said learned counsel we also went through the documents relevant for disposal of the appeal.
5. It will be observed that the appellant was served with show-cause notice three times viz. On 8-2- 1992, 22-4-1992 and 13-8-1992, wherein ' the allegations made against him were vague and general in nature. The allegations made against the appellant in first show-cause notice dated 8-2-1992 were enquired into by holding an independent enquiry through D.S.P./S.D.P.O., Shadadkot as E.O.
6. And were vacated by the authority vide his order dated 10-2-1992. The second show-cause notice dated 22-4-1992 has hitherto remained undecided as confirmed by the AA.-G. During the course of arguments, on this account the Departmental Authority owe an explanation as to why decision was not taken. No specific allegations were made against the appellant in the third show-cause notice dated 13-8-1992 which involve this appeal. In fact there was no need of serving with said third show-cause notice. The matter should have been decided strictly in accordance to the application of the provisions of the. Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred the rules), when reply, denying the allegations to the second show cause notice dated 22-4-1992, were received by the authorities from the appellant. The gap between first and third show-cause notice is about six months, one part of the charges levelled against the appellant in first show --cause notice was reproduced in 3rd show-cause notice. For argument sake it is true that the said vacation order does not absolve him (the appellant) for future and also at the same time nothing can prevent the Departmental Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings if cogent reasons and specific allegations have subsequently come to the notice of the said Authority. When the learned AA.-G. Was asked to take up the matter with Police authorities, citing to them the many cases of the Police Department which have failed based on such vague and general allegations, by advising the Police Authorities to first collect specific and authentic material against any police official before initiating disciplinary proceedings against him. He replied that he has already brought to their notice in writing. The learned counsel for appellant drew our attention to, the "Circular" of Inspector-General of Police, Sindh dated 6-7-1989, wherein the L-G.P. Has stressed and emphasized upon the Police Officers/authorities to the strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the said rules and the I: G.P. Has drawn their attention to some of the cases of the Sindh Service Tribunal who have cost serious aspersions as the quality of the proceedings of departmental enquiries conducted by the enquiry officers/authorities, which have failed due to legal lacuna and the accused officials have escaped punishment. We observe that the instructions of the L-G.P., Sindh are being repeatedly violated by the Police Officers/authorities. It is high time that the Police authorities should act on the instructions of I.-G.P's said Circular.
7. It is admitted position that in this matter the Departmental Authorities have taken no efforts to prove the allegations made in third show-cause notice dated 13-6-1992 despite the appellant's denial of the same. No subsequent detailed enquiry has been held nor the appellant was supplied any other material in support of the fresh allegations made against him, when he was served with show-cause notice or even thereafter It is therefore, essential to make a reference to sub-rule (4) of rule 6 of the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988. It is reproduced as under: "(4)On receipt .Of the findings of the Enquiry Officer or where no such officer is appointed, on receipt of the explanation of the accused, if any, the authority shall determine whether the charge has been proved and in case the charge has been proved, the Authority may award one or more punishment."
8. Here the question arises whether the charges made against the appellant had been proved, so that the competent authority was in a position to inflict the punishment on the appellant. As 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 opinion that in the circumstances as 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.
9. For the above reasons, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order whereby the appellant has been dismissed from service cannot be legally sustained and it is set aside with no order as to costs. However, we leave it open to the Police authorities to start fresh disciplinary proceedings against the appellant if they have specific and reliable material in their possession to prove the allegations against him, though these observations should not be considered as binding on the said authorities.