1. HAMZO KHAN M. KURESHI (CHAIRMAN.)-Tile present appeal impugnes the order dated 4-10-1972 passed by the Superintendent of Police Hyderabad ordering dismissal of the appellant from service and the orders passed in departmental appeal dated 24-12-1973 rejecting the same.
2. The appellant was selected as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1966 and was confirmed as such in 1971. He was promoted as Sub-- Inspector of Police in 1972. The facts leading to his dismissal as alleged by the respondents are that he was detailed to escort a Political Detenu, one Mr. Usman Kenedy, from Hyderabad to Central Prison, Sukkur. He was provided with a Government Jeep and a guard of three armed constables.
3. It is said that the party left Hyderabad for Sukkur at about 1-00 a. In, on 9-8-1972 by a Government Toyota Jeep. The party reached the town of Sukkur at about 9-15 a. m. But instead of going to the Central Jail, situated on this side of River Indus right along the National Highway by which the appellant and his party were travelling, they crossed the bridge over Indus and entered Sukkur town and after traversing roads went to Maderassah Ddrul Uloom Ghousia, Sukkur which is said to be the Headquarters of a Political Party (J. U. P.) to which the detune Mr. Usman Kenedy belonged.
4. At the Maderassah the party and the detune were served with breakfast and tea and it is alleged that the party stayed there for about half an hour and during this period the detune was allowed the facilities of meeting the local political figures like Moulana Muhammad Hussain and others who had assembled there.
5. It is further alleged that while passing through the Sukkur town the passers-by noticed the detune who was a prominent political figure and started following the Jeep and raising slogans. Even at the Mederassah a huge gathering shot up and the people started raising anti-government slogans. This attracted some Officers of Sukkur C. I. A. Police who apprehend--ing a serious law and order situation reported the matter to their superior Officer, Inspector Muhammad Umar. The Inspector General of Police Sind also received a source information about the incident and a similar report was received by the Chief Minister of Sind. The Administration took a serious note of the incident and ultimately the appellant was put under suspension and charge-sheeted under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules of 1960. After departmental enquiry' the Enquiry officer found him guilty of the charges stated above and sent his report to Superintendent of Police, Hyder--abad who dismissed the appellant from service with effect from 4-10-1972. The Superintendent of Police had given him the show-cause notice and having received his reply he gave' him a personal hearing before passing the impugned order.
6. The appellant has denied the allegation that he intentionally took the detune to Sukkur town and allowed him the facility of visiting the Maderessah to have breakfast, and meet his friends and political leaders. He has also denied that there was any incident at Sukkur that may have been likely to create law and order situation as alleged. He admits that he had taken the detune to Sukkur town and allowed him and his party to take tea at a hotel because they had travelled the whole night and were lawfully tired. He says neither he nor any of his party had seen Sukkur before.
7. On enquiries at Sukkur town they were led to the District Jail, Sukkur which is in the town itself. At that Jail they were informed that the detune was to be taken to Central Jail which was on the other side of the River. Then they went towards Central Jail but on the way they took tea at a hotel in the town. They delivered the detune at the Central Jail at 10-15 a. m. On the same day. It is thus clear that the appellant admits the entire case of the respondents except that he and his party took tea at a hotel and not at the Mederassah and that there was no incident in Sukkur town which was likely to create a law and order situation. It is to be determined by us as to which version is correct?
8. The main contention of the learned counsel of the appellant is that the entire party with the appellant was totally new to Sukkur and that they did not know where the Central Jail was located.
9. They therefore crossed the bridge over Indus and went to Sukkur town. The learned counsel asserts that the appellant being very tired for having travelled whole night, did not take any notice of Central Jail situated by the side of the road by which he' and his party were travelling. The party then made enquiries from wayfarers in the town about exact location of the Jail but they were led to the District Jail where they got the correct information about Central Jail. It is further claimed by the appellant that the Jeep in which the party was travelling was mechanically defective and it stopped at every short distance for cooling the rediator etc. In town of Sukkur also the Jeep went out of order and it is alleged that the driver parked the Jeep near some small hotel to get the Jeep repaired and meanwhile the escort party availed of the opportunity and took breakfast and tea at the hotel. On return from Sukkur the Jeep had to be abondoned under oral orders of Superintendent of Police Khairpur, at Ranipur and the party travelled back to Hyderabad in a Bus.
10. The learned Assistant Advocate-General for respondent states that no illega--lity, violation or non- compliance of rules with regard to the procedure followed during the course of departmental proceedings is alleged by the appellant hence the case of the appellant was not in any way prejudiced on that score. It is admitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that no illegality was committed so far the procedure of departmental enquiry was concerned. Thus we are left with the factual side of the case. All the facts of the case are admitted by the appellant except that he had intentionally taken the detune to Sukkur town and that he and his party had taken tea at a hotel is Sukkur town but not in the Maderessah as alleged by the respondents.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended before us only to points in favour of the appellant;
(1) That the evidence on record was not sufficient to warrant major penalty against the appellant.
(2) That the evidence on record consists of to sets of witnesses, each set contradicting the other is according to him the first set of witnesses has completely exonerated the appellant but the other set consisting of the public officers of Sukkur have implicated him. He asserts the set of witnesses exonerating the appellant are natural witnesses while the second set implicating ,then appellant are interested and unreliable witnesses.''
12. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has strenuously argued, that the points raised by the appellant will lead to appreciation of evidence by this Tribunal which would be beyond the scope of cur jurisdiction. He has contended that the appreciation is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the departmental authority and cannot be resorted to by judicial forum. We do not agree with this view. As an appellate authority over the final order of the department, we can go into the facts considered by the departmental authority. The appellate authority is competent to consider all the facts and law on which the penalty is based by the original authority.
13. The extent of objective satisfaction available to the departmental authority is so great that the Authorised Officer is not even bound by the findings of the Enquiry Officer. He further alleged that the appellant's case was based on an improbable version. He states that it was beyond the comprehension of any intelligent person, to have not noticed the boundary wall of the Central Prison while going to Sukkur town at 9-00 a. m. This argument has got any amount of force. It is not possible to believe that the app--ellant who was a Police Officer and his entire party consisting of 3 Constables and the Jeep driver, could not have during day the noticed the walls of the Central Jail which were by the side of the road by which they were driving. It is also not possible to believe that the appellant would not care to make enquires about the location of the Central Jail from the Police outpost situated at the head of the Barrage bridge near the Jail but instead he crossed the bridge, went over to the thick of the town and then made enquiries from the people about the Jail.
14. It is an admitted position that the appellant had the warrant in his possession which clearly showed that the detune was to be delivered at the Central Jail which is situated by the side of the National Highways on this side of the River about 3 to 4 miles from Sukkur town. Even if he bad really made enquiries about the "Central Jail" from the people in Sukkur town they would have surely guided him back across the River but could not have led him further on towards the District Jail as alleged. The defence version is a cock and bull story and cannot be accepted. The firs set of witnesses namely 3 constables and the Jeep driver have not supported the prosecution because they to were guilty of misconduct. The constables were subordinates of the appellant while the Jeep-driver was also the Government servant deputed to carry the police party and the detune to Central Jail Sukkur. This version has been disbelieved by the Enquiry Officer, the Superintendent of Police, the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the I.-G. Police. We find no reason to come to a different conclusion. On the other hand the version of the 3 police officers of the Special Branch Sukkur has been accepted by the Enquiry Officer and all the departmental authorities without any comment. The said police officers had no enmity or ill-will against the appellant. They reported the matter to the higher authorities in the same terms on the same day without any delay. There may be some minor contradictions in the evidence of these witnesses but it on the contrary shows that they were not tutored witnesses. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the departmental authorities. We also do not find it necessary to alter the penalty because the charges proved against the appellant are of very serious nature.
15. Under there circumstances we dismiss the appeal but leave the parties to bear their own costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.