1. ABDUL MAJEED KHANZADA (CHAIRMAN).---These two appeals being identical and involving the same issue as such we would like to dispose them by one judgment. Appellant Akhtar Hussain was appointed as constable in Federal Security Force on 13-11-1974 and was absorbed in Regular Police Force of Karachi in the year 1977 while appellant Muhammad Anwar was recruited in Karachi Police as constable on 27th January, 1975.
2. Appellant Akhtar Hussain was served with a show-cause notice dated 21-10-1992 while appellant Muhammad Anwar was served with the show-cause notice on 310-1992 by Senior Superintendent, Police, District West Karachi. The grounds of action in show-cause notice is the same, in both the appeals which is reproduced as under:-- GROUNDS OF ACTION "Reportedly you were mixed-up with criminals while posted in special staff at Jackson/T.P.X./Sher Shah Police Station and instances came to notice that you were involved in such activities."
3. While in the case of appellant Muhammad Anwar the ground of action of show-cause notice is the same but Police Station have been mentioned as Baldia Police Station. Both the appellants replied to the show-cause notices promptly. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Karachi. West issued final show-cause notice to both the appellants on 21-11-1992 which is reproduced as under:- "He. had submitted reply to the show-cause notice. He was also called and heard in person. His explanation was found unsatisfactory, A Committee constituted for scrutiny of such cases under the Chairmanship of D.C., West, had also scrutinised his case and found that he was implicated in the above activities. He is, therefore, awarded major punishment of Compulsory Retirement from service with immediate effect."
4. The final order for appellant Muhammad Anwar is also the same but the Police Station is shown as Baldia. The rest is stereotype and the same. Against this order appellants preferred appeal before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police but the same was rejected as such the appellants preferred the review petition before the Inspector-General of Police, Sindh which was also rejected. The appellants preferred appeal before this Tribunal but the same was also dismissed by this Tribunal being time-barred. As such the appellants approached the Supreme Court vide Civil Appeals Nos.
5. 69 of 1993 and 27 of 1994 respectively on 16-7-1996 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Tribunal. The final order dated 21-11-1992 was passed by the S.S.P., District West, Karachi wherein major penalty of compulsory retirement was awarded with immediate effect.
6. However, before the final order was passed, a Committee was constituted to look into the matter and scrutinise the case of the appellants which was headed by Deputy Commissioner, Karachi West as Chairman, Senior Superintendent of Police, West and Deputy Superintendent of Police as members.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as S.M. Sayedain Zaidi, Assistant Advocate-General for respondents. The learned counsel for the appellants has stressed that no specific instance has been shown nor the name of any criminal or sumuggler has been mentioned in show-cause notices. The show-cause notice simply says that he was mixed up with the criminals. He has further stated that the Committee headed by Deputy Commissioner, West and S.S.P., West and D.S.P. Special Branch has simply said that they were mixed up with criminals and smugglers. He has also argued that the allegations are simply stereotype and no specific instance have been quoted. He has also pointed out that the appellants were not heard in person by the Committee headed by Deputy Commissioner, West, as such the appellants have been condemned unheard The learned A.A.-G. has argued that in such circumstances major punishment should not have been awarded, only minor punishment was enough. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants as well as of the A.A.-0. and perused the record and the documents available. We have also considered the nature of charges reproduced above with due applications of mind. It appears to us that the charges are not only vague but are also of general nature. The so-called instances in support of the charges have not been elaborated nor they have been brought to the notice of the appellants, providing opportunity to furnish their explanation thereto. It is an admitted position that no document of any kind was supplied to the appellant at the time of service of show-cause notice. Therefore, at the time of decision the competent Authority had only two documents before him, namely: The show-cause notice containing the allegations against the appellants and the appellants' reply denying the said allegations. The question arose whether the competent Authority was in position to punish the appellants on the basis of above two documents. In this connection reference is invited to sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules which reads as under:-- "(4) On receipt of the findings of the Inquiry Officer or where no such officer is appointed, on receipt of the explanation of the accused, if any, the Authority shall determine whether the charge has been proved and in case the charge has been proved the Authority may award one or more punishment."
8. The above provisions of the rules clearly shows that punishment cannot be awarded unless the charges made against the appellants have been proved. In the instant case as stated above no inquiry has been held and the competent Authority has passed his order of punishment simply on two documents i,e, the show-cause notice and the appellants' reply. Surely the above two documents, read together, cannot be construed to have proved the charge against the appellants which is the legal requirement to be fulfilled, before punishing the appellants on that basis. In our opinion there was absolutely no material before the competent Authority to warrant the passing of the aforesaid orders of the punishments.
9. The material which was not shown and supplied to the appellants cannot be taken into accounts for the purpose of punishment, to be awarded to them.
10. This Tribunal has dealt with numerous cases of this nature in which it has been repeatedly pointed out to the police authorities that in order to avoid waste of time, expenses and energy, it would be advisable that proper enquiry be held to establish the charges made against the police personnel and then only they should be punished for such charges. We have also observed that the S.S.P., West has neither considered the reply of the appellants to the show-cause notice nor applied his own mind while passing the impugned order but has simply acted upon the decision of the Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, West which also based its decision on a vague allegation against the appellants without going into the merits of the case. It further appears that the D.I.-G. Police as well as I.-G. Police while deciding the appeals and revisions have neither heard the appellants nor afforded them any chance of hearing. Our findings are also supported by Supreme Court authority reported as WAPDA v. Ghulam Fareed 1992 PLC (C.S.) 1199. These are the reasons for our short order dated 14-10-1997 wherein we have allowed the appeals and have set aside the impugned order dated 21-11-1992 passed by the S.S.P., West Karachi. Consequently, the appellants stand reinstated in the service and the intervening period shall be treated as leave if due, with no order as to costs. However, if the appellants have drawn pension benefits or other benefits the same will have to be refunded.
11. Given under our hands and the seal of this Tribunal this 23rd day of October, 1997 at Karachi.