1. ' YOUSUF ALI MIRZA, MEMBER-I.---The facts as enunciated in the memo of appeal are that on 23-2- 2001 when appellant Bashir Ahmed Khooharo was serving as Sub-inspector at Police Station.
2. Thatta, a raiding party consisting of P.S. Jherruck, Malki, Thatta and Kinjher was formed including the appellant. The party raided village Mir Muhammad Chang on 23-2-2001. A quantity of 7,535 Kgs of Charas was recovered from the house of one Mir Muhammad Chang. S.S.P. Thatta was informed who reached at the raided house and in his presence the Charas was weighed and brought at Police Lines, Thatta in two trucks and such F.I.R. Under Narcotics Act was registered at P.S. Jherruck.
3. After formal investigation a challan was submitted in the concerned Court of law. As per memo of appeal the Appellant along with D.S.P. Mirpur Sakro left on 3-3-2001 for investigation of Crime No,1 of 2001 and such an entry was made in the daily diary at P.S. Malki however, the same was changed in the absence of the Appellant and he was reverted to the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police on 3-3-2001. Through another order made on the same date i,e, 3-3-2001, he was also placed under suspension and on his arrival at P.S. Malki he was arrested in Crime No, 7/2001 of P.S. Malki. Latter the appellant was released on bail. He was served with two show-cause notices dated 3-3-2001 it was alleged that appellant avoided attending the Court in spite of service of the process while in the notice dated 14-3-2001 it was alleged that he along with other police staff had stolen case property i,e, Charas recovered in Crime No,7/2001. The appellant replied to the notice denying the allegations but on 26-4-2001 he was awarded the major penalty of dismissal from service. The appellant preferred departmental appeal to D.I.G.P. Hyderabad, which was rejected on 10-1-2002. He then made representation to I.G.P. Of Sindh on 29-1-2002. The appellant later filed the instant appeal against the original as well as appellate order before this Tribunal.
4. ' The learned counsel for the appellant has argued the matter in detail His main argument is that in the instant matter no enquiry was conducted which is mandatory under the law i,e, the Police rules.
5. He further argued that the allegations levelled against appellant were of serious nature based on which the Crime No,7/2001 was registered and after usual investigation the appellant along with others was challaned in the Court of law. The appellant as well as others were however, acquitted vide judgment passed in section Case No,46 of 2001.
6. ' In support of prayer made in the appeal for setting aside the impugned orders and reinstating the appellant in the Police service from the date of his dismissal as well as restoration of original rank of Sub-Inspector with all back and consequential benefits as to pay, allowances and continuity in service the counsel for the appellant has further argued that since no enquiry was conducted in the matter and a simple show-cause notice was issued therefore, the same under the present circumstances cannot be sustained when the appellant has been acquitted of the said charges by Court of law. He relied on the case-law reported in 2003 PLC (C.S.) 514, 2001 SCMR 269 and 2002- SCMR-57. The learned counsel for the appellant further filed a photocopy of judgment passed in SC No,46 of 2001. The learned counsel has also made the statement at the bar that there is no action pending against the appellant.
7. ' Chaudhary Muhammad lqbal, Asstt. A.-G. For official respondents supported the impugned orders and stated that appeal may not be allowed.
8. ' We have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar; perused the material placed on the record and have gone through the case-law referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant.
9. Admittedly, the allegations levelled against the appellant, were of serious nature which he denied vehemently yet no regular inquiry was ordered conducted. Awarding major penalty merely on the basis of allegations contained in the show-cause notice under the law cannot be sustained. On the same set of allegations, the appellant was booked in Crime No, 7 of 2001 registered at P.S.. Malki and challaned in the Court of law to face trial. Learned HO Additional Sessions Judge Special Judge, Control of Narcotics Substance, Thatta after full-fledged trial of the case found the appellant and three others not guilty while remaining three accused were found guilty. Therefore, the learned Judge vide judgment dated 13-8-2002 acquitted the appellant and three others, remaining accused were convicted. Therefore, the very basis on which the appellant was awarded major penalty stands disappeard---Reference is invited to the case reported as 2002 SCMR 57. So tar reversion order dated 3-3-2001 is concerned, there is nothingon the record to indicate if the same was challenged by appellant before the departmental appellate authority prior to approaching this Tribunal. In the absence of departmental appeal the present appeal against the order dated 3-3-2001 reverting appellant to his substantive post of A.S.I.P. Is not maintainable.
10. Besides, two orders 'of distinct nature cannot be challenged in one appeal. The case of P.C. Allah Bux v. Inspector-General of Police and others decided by this Tribunal referred to by appellant has no application as in the said case appellant before approaching this Tribunal had exhausted the departmental remedy.
11. ' For the aforesaid reasons, the original impugned order dated 26-4-2001 and appellate order dated 10-1-2002 'are set aside and the appeal is allowed to that extent. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service to the post of A.S.I.P. From where he was dismissed.. As regards intervening period, the same shall be treated as 'Leave of kind due'. There will be no order as to costs.
12. ' (Above are the reasons of our short order dated 27-5-2003). iy.