1. MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ---This appeal arose from the compulsory retirement of the appellant Allahdino, a Police Constable, Larkana vide order of S.S.P., Larkana dated 17-5-1993. The said order was the result of the departmental action taken against the appellant. To begin with the appellant was served with show-cause notice dated 31-8-1991 which reads as under:-- "You while posted at PP Bus Stand Luhr Mohalla, Larkana went to Luhr Goth alongwith C/A Majeed, C/Wazir Ali, C/Gin Muhammad and C/All Gohar in plain clothes duly armed. Private persons namely Abdul Ghani Jagirani and Suhno Khatian were alongwith you.
2. On reaching at above village you approached Arbab Junejo who was making brick alongwith other labourers. On this the labourours present there resisted. You became annoyed and opened fire which caused injury to Laldino alias Sharbat. You took the injured in donkey cart and returned back to Larkana. On the way the mob of villagers surrounded you and snatched Government SIG from you. The mob also beat the other Constables severely.
3. The villagers appeared before the undersigned and complained about misuse of your official position. The undersigned noted the above matter, enquired into preliminary through Additional S.P., Larkana, who after detailed enquiry reported that the allegations levelled against you are correct. He was further recommended to take departmental action against you.
4. This shows your gross-misconduct and dereliction of duty.
5. You are directed to submit your reply within 7 days of the receipt of this notice as to why one or more punishments as mentioned in these rules should not be imposed upon you as per above rules.
6. In case your explanation is not received within the stipulated period, it shall be presumed that you have nothing to say and ex parte action will be taken."
7. The appellant submitted his reply to the charges contained in the aforesaid show-cause notice.
8. Somehow the S.S.P., Larkana was not satisfied with the appellant's reply and, therefore, he passed the impugned order, mentioned above. The appellant challenged the impugned order in his appeal filed before the D.I.-G. Police Larkana who by his order dated 10-2-1994 rejected his appeal.
9. Thereafter, the appellant filed the present appeal on 19-3-1994 with prayer that the order of his compulsory retirement from We heard Mr. Abdul Sattar Mughal for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Ghani Shaikh, A.A.-G. For the official respondents. We also carefully perused the relevant material available in the case file.
10. It is an admitted position that no inquiry envisaged by the Sind Police (Efficiency and Discipline)
11. Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred as the said Rules)-was held. Therefore; the question would arise if the allegations against the appellant as contained in the show-cause notice were proved, because the punishment could only be awarded after the charges are proved against the accused official. It would be noticed that the main charge against the appellant was that he had misused his official position inasmuch as he, accompanied by some police personnel and private persons, went to Lahory Goth in plain clothes unauthorisedly and in the said village he apprehended one Arbab Junejo who was busy in laying bricks and that as he was bringing the said Arbab Junejo in his donkey cart back to Larkana he and his party were mobbed by villagers who snatched Government SMG from him and also gave beating to some constables. It was also clear from the above notice that the villagers approached the S.S.P. And complained to him about the appellant's misconduct and misbehaviour.
12. It is true that no inquiry was held to ascertain the truth of the above allegations. Because, it was not necessary to do so in view of the admissions made by the appellant in his lengthy reply. The appellant has admitted having gone to the Lahori Mohalla (Village) and confronted with the said Arbab Junejo there. According to him he asked him to tell his name and other identifying particulars but he refused point blank and on the contrary misbehaved with him and, therefore, he was constrained to exercise his powers under section 54, Cr.P.C. Requiring him to accompany him to the p police station. We are not convinced by the appellant's reply. We see no reasons why the said Arbab Junejo refused to disclose his name and other particulars to the appellants. Moreover, we cannot understand what made the appellant to collect the identifying particulars from the said Arbab Junejo. There is nothing to show even in appellant's own reply why he suspected Arbab Junejo to be a criminal. It also appeared to us that the appellant had suppressed the truth by saying that while snatching Kalashinkov of from him the trigger suddenly went of and one person Lal Dino was injured. In para.3 of the memo of appeal the appellant's version is that he had gone to Lahory Goth with permission of higher officers. But this has been denied in para. 3 of the written statement filed by the learned A.A.-G. Wherein it is clearly mentioned that the appellant and his companions apprehended Arbab Junejo by illegal force which created serious law and order situation in the village. It is further stated in the said para. Of the written statement that appellant had gone to Lahori Mohalla in plain clothes and without making any entry in the official diary and further that he had not got permission from the competent Authority for visiting the aforesaid village.
13. After giving our due thought to the to versions, one of the appellants and the other of the A.A.-G., we are inclined to believe to latter version of the A.A.-G. Which on face of it looked natural and worthy o credence. As such we hold the charges made against the appellant as proved.
14. Consequently the S.S.P.'s order of appellant's compulsory retirement and the D.I.-G.P.'s order rejecting the appellant's appeal against the said order are hereby upheld. In view of these conclusions, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.