1. ABDUL MAJEED KHANZADA (CHAIRMAN).---According to the counsel for the appellant, the facts of this appeal are same as in Service Appeal No,58 of 1995. It was, however, pointed out to him by the Chairman, Sindh Service Tribunal that in Appeal No,58 of 1995--the appellant was deployed at police picket Mitha Colony--away from Police Station Warah, whereas in the present appeal the appellant was posted as Night In charge and on police lines duty at Police Station Warah itself. The counsel for the appellant, thereafter, submitted that the cause of disciplinary action against this appellant was same i,e, the armed attack of dacoits on Police Station Warah- in the mid night of 8th/9th April, 1992. According to him the appellant was posted at lines duty i,e, residential quarters of police personnel at P.S. Warah and not at the Police Station itself. The Chairman, Sindh Service Tribunal pointed out that as per statement of allegations Annexure A/1 page 11, the appellant was deployed as Night In charge and line watch duty over written in hand 'on' instead of 'as' in hand without sign/initial of the issuing Authority. Further, "On Night In charge and lines duty does not make any sense. Hence, this plea is not correct. The counsel, however, insisted that the appellant was only Night In charge of line watch duty'--not agreed by the Chairman. According to the counsel, appellant had also fired about 90 shots in the encounter which proves that the charge of cowardice against him was unfounded/baseless. He also maintained that the loss of Government arms/ammunition was due to the fact that these were lying in Record Room instead of Mall Khana/Arms Room for which the responsibility lies squarely at the S.H.O. concerned, who was present at the Police Station but he has been reinstated in service and instead a poor H.C. has been made a scapegoat. On the grounds of equity, natural justice and fair play, he requested that the appellant's punishment be also set aside. All other grounds in this appeal, according to him were same, i,e, technical objections about non-provision of the copy of Enquiry Officer's Report, no opportunity was provided to cross-examine the P.Ws., personal hearing was not provided while finally rejecting the review by the Additional I.-G. Police and the citations relied upon by him are also the same, as cited in Service Appeal No, 58 of 1995.
2. Mr. S.M. Sayedain Zaidi, A.A.-G. Sindh disputed strongly that both the Appeals viz. 58 of 1995 and 62 of 1995 are on the same footing beca?se according to him the appellant in Appeal No, 58 of 1995 was actually deployed out side Police Station Warah, whereas the appellant in Appeal No,62 of 1995 was actually posted at Police Station Warah itself as Night Incharge and also on lines watch duty.
3. He also contended that there was no allegation of criminal involvement of appellant in Appeal No,58 of 1995 with the dacoit Bashoo Shabrani and his boy friend Jemi Jat who was in custody at Warah Police Station for whose release the dacoits attacked that Police Station. According to him the appellant in Appeal No,62 of 1995, by cast Jagarani, was grossly mixed up with the dacoits, used to leak information to them, provided V.V.I.P. treatment to Jemi Jat. He read at length from Letter No,ADDL/SP/230, dated 1-4-1995 from the Additional S.P., Larkana (Mr. Allah Dino Khan Mahar) addressed to the then S.S.P., A Larkana, wherein he has recorded in para. 3, page 1/2 of that letter: "I have also collected secret information based on my secret and personal sources. From the evidence on record, and secret information which is based on most reliable and personal sources, it revealed that this H.C. who is Jagarani by caste, residing in Tal Qambar (belt of Chandia and Shabrani tribe). This H.C. had very close terms with Bashoo Shabrani. During the detention of Jemi Jat at the Police Station, he used to give warm well-come and V.V.I.P. treatment to Jemi Jat who was boy friend of Bashoo Shabrani. He used to leak out internal defence and administration weaknesses to Bashoo Shabrani secretly. It is also learnt that two days before incident took place, this H.C. had gone on furlo of two days (leave off the record) and he was in full knowledge of the attack of Bashoo Shabrani at Police Station. Even date and time of attack at Police Station was in his knowledge. This is the reason that he accepted voluntarily night Incharge duty on 8-4-1992 and the development of P.Cs. on second duty were also meaningful, deployment of P.C. Ali Asghar on second duty from 9-00 to 12 hours was also intentional because this constable had only reached the Police Station on the same day and was totally unaware of challenging position of police station against the attack of Bashoo Shabrani. Since he was totally innocent, therefore, he was hit by the dacoits, at the very first instance, while all other deploy staff including H.C. defaulter made their escape good and kept silent (I would rather say with the convenience of defaulter H.C. they virtually and physically deserted from duty showing their completely cowardliness) the H.C. was party with the dacoits for attack on the police. If the S.H.O. would have been competent enough and conscious keeping in view the challenging position of the police station he could smell the previous conduct of this H.C. But I am sorry to remark that S.I.P. Sardar Ali Shah appears to be most unbecoming S.H.O. Otherwise the attack could have easily embushed and all the dacoits could have been killed on the spot. If the S.H.O. would have worth the post. I agree with the opinion and findings of Mr. Agha Mir Alvi former Enquiry Officer in recommending dismissal from service of defaulter H.C. Abdul Ghafoor Jagarani." This letter is submitted with the written statement of the respondents.
4. In view of this detailed letter of the then A.S.P., Larkana, we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Even the orders of S.D.M./A.C., Larkana in Case No, 76 of 1992 in which the proceedings under section 29 of Police Act were dropped against appellant and 10 others are of no avail to him as the proceedings were stopped as 'processes were issued to the P. Ws. from time to time but prosecution during such a long period (i,e, of 4 years from registration of case to that date of order viz. 19-11-1996) had not procured the attendance of a single P.W., who all are police officials and local persons. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with no orders as to cost.
5. Given under our hands and the seal of this Tribunal this 20th day of B March, 1998 at Karachi.