1. ' ABDUL MAJID KHANZADA (CHAIRMAN).---Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the final/appellate order (bearing No,27840-41/EIII/97/S/192, dated 20-12-1997) passed by the respondent No,1, the appellant filed this service appeal on 27-12-1997.
2. ' The facts, according to the appellant briefly stated are that while serving as a Police Constable at Police Station 'B' Section, Sukkur the appellant alongwith another constable namely Allah Warrayo allegedly 'snatched' Rs,3,000 from one Muhammad Siddique Chachar. The S.H.O. Concerned produced the alleged complainant before S.S.P./respondent No,3 and appellant was dismissed from service vide impugned order, dated 12-9-1997 on the alleged verbal admission of the above said charge against him, before S.S.P. Concerned.
3. ' Against dismissal order, he filed departmental appeal before respondent No,2, which was rejected on .31-10-1997. The appellant thereafter filed review petition before respondent No,1 which was also rejected on 20-12-1997. Hence, this service appeal.
4. ' The main contentions of the Advocate for the appellant are:--
(i) There is no recovery of the alleged/extorted/snatched amount of Rs,3,000 from the appellant.
(ii) Neither a show-cause notice was issued nor any departmental inquiry held against him, prior to the issuance of impugned dismissal order.
(iii) The other co-accused, has been reinstated (in appeal) in service whereas the appellant has not been reinstated in service and as such it amounts to 'discrimination'.
5. As such, the counsel for the appellant, requested for setting aside the impugned original/final orders with all past service benefits.
6. ' Learned A.-G. Submitted that under Rule 6, sub-rule (6) of the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988, summary proceedings are permissible/in accordance with law. Since the appellant according to him 'accepted' his guilt before respondent No,3, there was no need for a departmental inquiry or issuance of a show-cause notice. He also referred to 1998 PLC (C.S.) page 794, and submitted that while considering the alleged discrimination, it is necessary to protect the people at large. It is also an accepted principle that two (2) 'wrongs' cannot make one 'right'. He therefore, pleaded that the appellant did not deserve any mercy/compassion and this appeal, be dismissed.
7. ' We have gone through the arguments of both the sides carefully and perused the record.
8. ' The appellant, in his appeal to D.I.-G./respondent No,2 comprising of 3 full scape pages has admitted at page 1 Annexure 'C', page 13 of this appeal that he (alongwith another constable) saw the complainant, dubiosuly looking around, brought him to the picket, made inquiries subjected him to a little violence (not beating on which he said on Oath that he had come to Sukkur to see a person of his caste-fellow, had no links with the criminals on which we let him go and no money was extorted from him'.
9. ' What is evident from the above is that the appellant did arrest the complainant on 'suspicion' subjected him to a 'little violence' in his own words, Here, we would like to refer to the provisions of, Cr.P.C., where the powers to arrest a person or search a person without warrant are vested with S.H.O./Station House Officer but not to a police constable the lowest formation in the Department.
10. Further, it is the accepted legal position that an accused, while in police custody is not to be tortured and this fact has to be recorded specifically even while giving remand. Even if the complainant was seen in dubious circumstances by the appellant, it was his duty to produce him before some responsible officer for investigations/questioning. He was also not empowered to subject the complainant to 'a little violence' in his own words which appears to be jugglery of words. Lastly no enmity was alleged against the complainant or the reporting S.H.O.
11. ' Since, the public complaints of extortions are rampant in national press, specially against the lower formations who prey on the poor/come-on/semi-literate citizens, we regret to show any compassion in this case. We are in agreement with the A.A.-G. That summary proceedings are provided in the Police Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Since the appellant accepted his 'guilt' verbally before the S.S.P. Concerned, the highest ranking officer, of the District, in the presence of the complainant as well as S.H.O. Concerned, we have no reasons to disbelieve the same, specially when no enmity or prejudice is alleged against the S.H.O./S.S.P. concerned. Such malpractice by lower formations also need to be curbed with an iron hand, in the larger public interest.
12. ' We are also in agreement with the A.A.G. To the extent that two wrongs do not make one right. We are also of the considered view that mere technicalities should not obstruct the process of justice.
13. ' We, therefore, find no justification to interfere with the impugned original Appellate order. We would also like to direct the respondent No,1 viz. I.-G. Police to call for the record of the other co- accused viz. P.C. Allah Warrayo said to have been reinstated in appeal, and pass appropriate orders after proper re-examination of the entire record in suo motu proceedings.
14. ' This 'appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost,