1. HAMZO KHAN M. KURHSHI (CHAIRMAN).-This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Headquarters for dismissing the appellant from his service as a Police Constable which order was sub3e--quently maintained in appeal by the Deputy Inspector-General Police and then in revision by the Inspector-General of Police.
2. We have heard the appellant and learned Assistant Advocate-General and have also gone through the facts involved in this appeal carefully. We find no substance in the contentions of the appellant that he was wrongly dis--missed. However, we feel that quantum of punishment awarded to the appellant is disproportionate to the misconduct proved against him.
3. The brief facts are that the appellant was enlisted in Karachi Police Force on 1-8-1951. He served in Karachi Police at various places and was at the the of his suspension working under Superintendent of Police Head--quarters, Karachi. He was placed under suspension by the above- said officer on 27-1-1972 for having misappropriated Government Rifle with 10 live cartridges. A criminal case under section 409, P. P. C. Was registered against the appellant and transferred to Anti-Corruption Establishment, Karachi for investigation. The investigation took pretty long hence the appel--lant started sending letters to his superiors accusing the Department to have involved him in a false case. In one of his letters addressed to Inspector. General of Police, Sind, he used abusive language against his superiors. This letter of appellant was sent to Superintendent of Police, Headquarters Karachi, who served him with a charge-sheet on 30-4-73. The charge-sheet reads as under :- "You submitted the application dated 26-2-1973 direct to Inspector --General of Police, Sind, Karachi regarding the expeditious disposal of the case, F. I. R. No. 22 of 1972 under section 409, P. P.
4. C. Of Anti-Corruption Establishment, Sind, Karachi. The said application contains objectionable language which is against the discipline of the Force.
5. This department is already pursuing your case and the A. C. E. Authorities have been repeatedly addressed in this connection. In this circumstance this at of yours of sending the above application direct to I.-G., P., Karachi using threatening and objectionable words, further confirm that you have no regard to discipline of the Force.
6. In this connection you had sent for my Orderly Room on 24-4-1973 and during the course of O. R., you failed to account for the reasons under which you submitted the above application to I. G. P.
7. And broken the chain of command and what made you to use objectionable and threatening language in the application. You on the contrary replied that you would face the charge-sheet and during that course you would explain the position.
8. The facts noted above, constitute misconduct and inefficiency and displaying insolent behaviour during the course of Orderly Room before me in presence of A.S.P. Mr. Azhar Ali Faruqui and Head Clerk Mr. S. A. Hashmi."
9. The charge-sheet alongwith the statement of allegations were served on the appellant on 30-4- 1973 and he submitted his reply dated 4-5-1973. He was heard in person by Superintendent of Police Headquarter on 14-5-1973. The Superintendent of Police considered his explanation unsatisfactory and appointed Inspector Abdul Rashid Baloch as Enquiry Officer under the provi-- sions of West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960. The Inspector conducted the departmental enquiry in presence of the appellant and submitted his report finding the appellant guilty of the above said charges and recommended major punishment the Enquiry Officer however suggested that in view of the long service of the appellant he may be forced to retire. The Superintendent of Police served the final show-cause notice to the appellant on 17-7- 1973 requiring him to explain why he should not be dismissed from service. The appellant submitted his reply to the said notice on 25-7-1973. The Superintendent of Police heard him in person on 17-8-1973 and ordered his dismissal on 18-8-1973. The Superintendent of Police held that the charges were proved against the appellant and that he was unfit for service in the disciplined fore like police hence he was dismissed with effect from 17-8-1973. The appellant made an appeal to the Deputy-Inspector-General who rejected it on 21-11-1973. He then filed revision application to the Inspector-General of Police which to was rejected on 23-5-1974. The appellant filed the present appeal on 5-6-1974.
10. During the course of arguments it has transpired that the appellant was convicted by the Provincial Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Karachi for offence under section 409 P. P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court. The appellant states that his appeal is pending the High Court against the said judgment.
11. The appellant admits having made various applications to his higher authorities after he was falsely implicated in the criminal case of misappro--priation of Government Rifle and, live cartridges. He also admits to have made the application direct to the Inspector-General of police using the objectionable therein. He says that he did so because he was desperate due to his suspension for 13 months and poor progress of the investigation during the period. He alleges personal prejudice against the Superintendent of Police Headquarters who dismissed him from service. The appellant seems to have a grievance against the entire Police Department including the Inspector-General of police for not listening to his personal and general complaints. He has put several applications on record which show that he had adopted the foolish role of a reformer in Police Department which had laid him in trouble. The contents of the applications clearly indicate that he bad become insolent, in subordinate and abusive after he was suspended due to the criminal case filed against him. Insubordination amounts to misconduct and he has beers rightly punished.
12. As regards his grievance against the enquiry conducted against him, we find brat there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the Enquiry Officer or the punishing authority. All the legal formalities were correctly served and the enquiry was held in presence of the appellant. The Inquiry Officer sent an adverse report to the Superintendent of Police who was the appointing authority of the appellant. The Superintendent served him with a facial show-cause notice heard him personally and then passed the order of dismissal against him. The appellant did not illegal personal prejudice against the Superintendent of Police at any stage during the enquiry or in his reply to the final snow-cause notice.
13. The appellant states that he had a clear record of his service out he is belied by to Confidential Service Roll produced by the Police Department.
14. The next contention of the appellant is that the Authority passing the order of his dismissal (Superintendent of Police Headquarters) has acted as a Judge in his own cause. He has not said so in his memo of appeal. The charge-sheet shows that the appellant displayed insolent behaviour during the course of Orderly Room before the Superintendent of Police. This does got mean that the Superintendent of Police had become the Judge in his own cause. This observation by the Superintendent of Police was merely statement of a fact. It does not amount to an offence against the Superinten--dent of Police. It speaks of the insolent and in subordinate conduct of the app.- leant for which, coupled with other charges of the same nature, he was rightly punished. The Superintendent of Police had no personal grudge against the appellant. He has only stated a fact which would not amount to being a Judge in his own cause. It is obvious from the applications and letters on record that the appellant has used un-parliamentary and undignified language against the entire hierarchy of the Police Department which by itself shows how reckless, indiscreet and undisciplined he was while being in the active service of the Police Force. He has crossed all the limits of desceney and bye-passed the Rules by making direct applications even to the Head of the Police Department (I.-G. Police) and also to the Head of the Province (Governor) while the criminal case against him was still under investigation. All this shows his scanty regard, nay utter contempt for the rules and regulations which govern the officers of his department. His acts amount to gross misconduct and we find no reason to differ from the punish--ing Authority.
15. For all these reasons, we find no merit in his appeal on facts as well as law. We, however, find that the punishment awarded to the appellant is rather severe and disproportionate to his misconduct.
16. Dismissal for making direst applications to the Inspector-General of Police or the Governor of the Province and using abusive language for his superiors, is neither just nor equitable. The appellant has a long service of 22 years and on this account the Enquiry Officer had suggested in his report that he (appellant) should be forced to retire from service. We agree with the suggestion of the Enquiry Officer and alter the punishment of the appellant from dismissal to compul--sory retirement from service. He should be given admissible pension with effect from 17-8-1973. With this modification we dismiss the appeal with no order for costs.