S. NASIM HAIDER (MEMBER). ---Being dissatisfied with the impugned Order bearing No. E.I/4941-42 Lark, dated 27th February, 1994 issued by the then Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Larkana Range (respondent No. 1), the appellant firstly filed departmental appeal dated 16-3-1994 before the I.-G. Police, Sind (respondent No. 2). His appeal was dated 27th July, 1994 and hence this appeal before the
2. We have heard Mr. M.M. Aqil Awan, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Azizur Rehman, Standing Counsel for the official respondents and also perused the record of the case at length with their help.
3. The chronological history of the case is that the appellant (S.I. Police) was charge-sheeted by the then Superintendent of Police, Sheikhupura' vide No.CC/77-78, dated 20th June, 1992 accompanied by summary of allegations as under: "You S.I. Abdul Latif Pirzada (Now S.H.O., Dakhan) registered the case F.I.R. No. 62/90 under section 364, P.P.C. At Police Station Garhi Yasin through your brother-in-law one Ali Shah son of Ghulam Shah Pirzada against Inayatullah and 6 others including the complainant of 1st Case Crime No. 61 /90 under section 364, P.P.C. Of Police Station Garhi Yasin. 1n the case son of complainant Ali Shah (brother-in-law) of you and S.-I. Siraj Ahmed Pirzada was abducted and 164, Cr.P.C. Statement was got recorded by the I.O. And all the accused nominated in case F.I.R. No. 62/90 were chalaned in the Court of Law on 31-7-1991. And the Case Crime No. 61/90 under section 364, P.P.C. Against accused Imdad and 5 others of S.-I. Siraj Ahmed and you in which complainant's son was shown abducted was disposed of as false case on the basis of section 161, Cr. P.C.
The matter was entrusted to D.S.P., Ghari Yasin for necessary enquiry, who has submitted his report that Case Crime No. 62/90 under section 364, P.P.C. Of Police Station, Garhi Yasin got registered by your brother-in-law Ali Shah son of Ghulam Shah Pirzada, as the case actually false but was got challenged by you and S.-I. Siraj Ahmed Pirzada using your influence. Thus, you have been found guilty of abuse to your official status."
The charge-sheet was replied and the charges denied by the appellant. Consequently, Mr. Shamim Ahmed, Inspector/SDPO-III Lakhi Ghulam Shah "vas appointed as the Enquiry Officer. In his enquiry report, dated 28th January, 1993 the said Enquiry Officer did not hold the appellant guilty of the charges levelled against him and recommended his exoneration. Thereafter, the then D.I.-G. Police, Larkana called for the papers and vide his orders, dated 8th May, 1993 also exonerated the appellant. However, his successor-in-office withdrew the same, on the alleged legal lacunae and directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Larkana to pass final orders on merits in accordance with the rules, vide his orders dated 29th September, 1993. Mr. Muhammad Afzal Malik, Senior Superintendent of Police, Larkana disagreed with the Enquiry Officer on personal knowledge vide his orders, dated 28th November, 1993 and awarded the appellant "major punishment of withholding of his promotion for one year". We may also add here that the order dated 20-11-1993 of the S.S.P., Larkana based on his personal knowledge instead of evidence on record is highly irregular being based on hearsay as against the findings of the only Enquiry Officer in the alleged charges against the appellant. 1t also suffers from misclassification of withholding promotion for one year a minor penalty as per said Police (E&D) Rules, 1988 as a major penalty by him.
Notwithstanding this factual position, the succeeding D.I.-G. Police, Larkana (Mr. Niaz Ahmed Siddiki) vide his orders, dated 27th February, 1994 disagreed with the S.S.P., Larkana and issued a notice under Rule 12 of the Sind Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988 for enhancement of the "minor punishment into major punishment" on 26th January, 1994 and finally removed the appellant from service with immediate effect.
4. Our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for appellant that the disciplinary action was taken against the appellant on the allegations that Case Crime No. 61/90 was closed and 62/90 was allegedly got registered at the behest of the appellant which according to him was factually incorrect. The complainant in the said Case No. 62/90 was the brother-in-law of the appellant and at that the of registration of this case appellant was posted elsewhere. Both the-said cases were duly investigated. While Case No. 61/90 was closed as false and Case No. 62/90 is still pending for decision before the competent Trial Court. Therefore, it was premature to say that this case is false, manipulated or registered at the behest of the appellant. Normally speaking, such action smacks of the competent Court and encroachment on its jurisdiction. We are, therefore, inclined to agree with him that the issuance of charge-sheet on such allegations was not desirable to say the least.
He also drew our attention to the fact that the allegations contained in the charge-sheet and summary of allegations, were vehemently denied by the appellant and Mr. Shamim Ahmed, Inspector/SDPO-II, Lakhi Ghulam Shah who was properly appointed as the Enquiry Officer had exonerated the appellant of the charges levelled against him. The case papers were also called for perusal of the then D.I.-G. Police, Larkana who also exonerated the appellant vide his orders dated 18-5-1993. He submitted that this order of D.I.-G., Larkana could not be withdrawn by his successor- in-office legally as per his orders dated 18-5-1993 due to alleged legal lacunae, mainly on the ground that the same were passed by Mr. Muhammad Ramzan Channa, former S.S.P., Larkana (BPS-18) holding additional charge of D.I.-G. Police, Larkana. However, the learned counsel for appellant could not produce any document to the affect that Mr. Muhammad Ramzan Channa was holding the full charge of D.I.-G. Police, Larkana or was holding the same only on current charge basis/looking after day-to-day matters. He, however, pointed out the inconsistency in the thinking of the then D.I.-G.P. (Mr. Niaz Ahmed Siddiki) who firstly directed the then S. S. P., Larkana to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with the rules but subsequently exercised his suo motu reversionary powers under Sind Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988 which apparently shows his bias against the appellant and finally removed the appellant from service without considering the facts that the appellant stood exonerated by the Enquiry Officer viz. Mr. Shamim Ahmed, Inspector/SDPO-III, Lakhi Ghulam Shah and also by his predecessor-in-office or was awarded minor penalty (erroneously stated as major penalty) by the S.S.P., Larkana who had ordered for withholding the promotion of the appellant for one year and therefore, not appealed against by the appellant. Moreover, the final orders of the D.I.-G. Police, L&kana without recording any evidence or reasons for disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer and S.S.P., Larkana were ex parte i.e. Without affording the appellant the proper opportunity of personal hearing though it was reported p to him as recorded in para. 3 of his orders dated 27th February, 1994 that the appellant was reportedly sick and had gone to Karachi for his medical treatment. This is obviously against the established principles of natural justice, fair play and no one should be condemned unheard repeatedly emphasized by the superior Courts.
5. We have perused also the report of the only Enquiry Officer, namely Mr. Shamim Ahmed, Inspector/SDPO-III Lakhi Ghulam Shah dated 28-1-1993 which is very exhaustive on the subject comprising of 16 pages after full investigations of the facts and record of the cases and counter- cases between the parties and wherein he has completely exonerated the appellant of all the charges levelled against him.
6. In view of the above we are unable to uphold the impugned order of D.I.-G. Police, Larkana dated 27-2-1994 and set aside the same. There are no orders as to cost.