1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(3)??????? No any proof or identity of the ladies is available. (4)??????? No material evidence came on record. (5)??????? The allegation of running of gambling den is not supported by any evidence. (6)? ????? No tonga driver or his son is identified. Hence allegation could not stand. (7)??????? Whereabouts of Bhooral are not given/known. Hence could not be proved. (8)??????? This allegation regarding commission of theft from the house of one Khadim Hussain is denied so could not be proved. (9)??????? No material evidence is on record. (10) ???? As above. (11)????? This allegation is also not proved against the defaulter as he is not involved or challaned in the Case No. P‑134/89 under section 17(3), EHO of P.S. Section, Sukkur. Brothers of the defaulter were involved by Khosa Community who are facing trial. This is the result of not terms between the two tribes. (12)????? This allegation regarding unauthorisedly occupying the House belonging of Soomro tribe and other several houses given on rent could also not be proved as there is no circumstantial evidence on record. (13)????? No criminal record is available against this constable. (14)????? This allegation is also denied as in the transfer order issued by worthy D.I.‑G;, Sukkur .for his transfer ,.from District Sukkur to District Nawabshah clearly shows that this 1rarisfer order was made on the request of defaulter not due, to his criminal. activities but due to enmity of his .brothers with Khosas he had made such request. (Copy‑‑of the Order No. B‑11/18444‑45, dated 14‑10‑1989 is enclosed." Providing further the Enquiry Officer has recorded his comments in the following words:‑‑‑ "Defaulter C/1703 Hamzo Khan Solangi was promoted to the Rank of Head Constable .vide SP, Nawabshah's Order No. OB/2729, dated? 9‑12‑1990 in recognition of his satisfactory performance as a special case (copy of th_ a order is. enclosed). The defaulter was suspended with effect from 19‑7‑1992 vide order No. OB/1890, dated '19‑7‑1992 and still under suspension. The defaulter teas regularised in the Rank of Head Constable in his own pay and grade vide No. OB/1133, dated 8‑5‑1991 on the retirement of NC/233 Muhammad Rafique as a special case. Case F.I.R. No. 75/87 under section 302/307/452/148/149, P.P.C. and 13‑DAO of P.S. "B" Section. Sukkur dated 7‑7‑1987 lodged by Complainant.? Muhammad Ibrahim father of present defaulter C/1703 Hamzo Khan Solangi shows that there was enmity between the tribes of Khosa and Solangi. The motive was running of Suzuki's on hire at Abad Suzuki Stand, Sukkur. On the day of incident viz. 7‑7‑1987 at 09‑00 hours persons of Khosa Community namely. Bajar Khoso, Ashique, Wazir, Nizam, Ayub and Fareed all by caste Khosa trespassed the house of complainant (father of present defaulter) duly armed with deadly weapons and made direct firing with the result, (Mst. Nooran) mother of defaulter and brothers, son named Abdul Hussain were injured seriously. They were taken to Sukkur Hospital for treatment but they both expired on the way. Hence this F.I.R. (Copy of F.I.R. No. 75/87 of P.S. ?B" Section) is enclosed herewith. Defaulter has also submitted copy of judgment of the Court of IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur vide Sessions Case No. 390/83 Cr, No.105/83 under section 307, P.P.C. read with sections 114/34 and 504 of P.S. "B" Section, Sukkur, in which defaulter Hamzo Khan and his father Muhammad Ibrahim were stated as accused, the Hon'bh Court was pleased to acquit the accused under section 345, Cr.P.C. and their bail bonds were not at‑liberty. (Copy of the judgment is enclose( herewith). Defaulter Hamzo Khan, alongwith his two brothers, Khadim Hussai and Abdul Fateh were challenged in the Court of joint Civil Judge an FCM, Sukkur vide case F.I.R. No. 160/86 under section 380/45 P.P.C. and 14, Hudood Ordinance of P.S. B‑Section, Sukkur and after usual trial the Hon'ble Court was pleased to acquit all the three (3)accused under section 245((), Cr.P.C. and cancelled their bail bone (copy of the judgment is enclosed herewith). As regards the remaining cases as per list attached against the brother and father of defaulter, from perusal of enquiry papers, it revealed the cases were registered by the Khosa due to previous enmity are deponents in the case are facing trial in the concerned Courts." In the end of his report the Enquiry Officer recorded his findings as, under: "In view of the foregoing discussion and enquiries conducted by the undersigned. I aril of the opinion that defaulter C/1703 Hamzo Solar at Police Lines, Nawabshah may be exonerated from the charges and suspension period may be decided as duty as the allegations level', against the defaulter could not be proved." After careful perusal of the enquiry report, we are in no doubt that the Enquiry Officer was fully convinced that there was absolutely no case 'against appellant who has therefore, been completely exhonerated by him from all charges. Despite such clear‑cut findings of the Enquiry Officer, the appellant not only been punished but he has been awarded the extreme penalty of dismissal from service. Since the charges made against the appellant were not proved, question arose what material formed the basis of the appellant's punishment? For answer to this question we will have to look into the impugned order For the purpose it may perhaps be helpful to reproduce the said order verbatim. It reads as under: In pursuance of the Inspector‑General of Police Sindh, Karachi Letter No. 18567/E. V., dated 8‑9‑1992, a Committee comprising of? Deputy Commissioner, Nawabshah, Superintendent of Police, Nawabshah, and Representative of Special Branch viz. Group Officer, Nawabshah was convened and its meeting was held in the office of the undersigned on 13‑10‑1992 at 10‑00 hours to review the case of C/1703 Hamzo Khan Solangi. The instructions of the Inspector‑General of Police, Sindh, Karachi contained in the Letter No. U.O./21106‑9/E.V., dated 11‑10‑1992 received under Ends. No. PA/415, dated 14‑10‑1992 of the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police; Sukkur were also kept in view. It was resolved in the said meeting unanimously that C/1703 Hamzo Khan Solangi of this District came in purview of Category of D' involved in criminal cases; and involved in the following cases:‑‑ (1) F.I.R. No. 24/89 under sections 353 and 332, P.P.C. of P.S. Rohri. (2) F.I.R._No. 100/89 under sections 307 and 353, P.P.C., P.S. Rohri. (3) F.I.R. No. 101/89 under section 13, E.H.O. of P.S. Rohri. (4) F.I.R. No. 50/83 under sections 323 and 147, P.P.C. of P.S. B‑Section, Sukkur. (5) F.I.R. No. 105/83 under sections 307 and 34, P.P.C. of P.S.B‑Section, Sukkur. (6) F.I.R. No. 160/86 under sections 457 and 380, P.P.C. read with section 14 of P.S. B‑Section. (7) F. I. R. No. 147/86 under sections 457 and 480, P.P.C. of P.S. B‑Section, Sukkur. (8) F.I.R. No. 5/85 under sections 457, 511 and 506(2), P.P.C. P.S. A‑Section, Sukkur. His brothers namely Khadim Hussain, Abdul Fateh and Cousin were also involved in so many cases. He is also involved in so many other bad elements viz. running, of gambling dens, bringing women for immoral purpose, sheltering to the criminals, trespassing the houses illegally. He had also occupied so many houses in Taj Colony, Nawabshah unauthorisedly and given on rent. In view of the above facts, the committee arrived at the decision that he would not prove to be a good Police Officer in future and recommended for his dismissal from service. There is such, approval of the Government of Sindh, I.‑G.P., Sindh, Karachi and I):I.‑G.P., Sukkur also on record. In view of the decision of the Committee, he is dismissed from service with Immediate effect. His suspension period from 19‑7‑1992 to 20‑10‑1992 is treated as such." It is clear from the above order that it was based on extraneous consideration which could not be held as, substitute for the proof of the charges made against the appellant. He could not be punished on mere allegations or his mere involvement to criminal cases nor any punishment could be awarded to the appellant on the basis of unanimous resolution passed by the High‑ups of District whatever be their opinion that alone could not be made the basis of the Appellant's punishment. In absence of the convincing proof of the allegations made against the appellant the impugned order of his dismissal from service was not legally sustainable. As such we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order with no order as to costs. H.B.T./3/Sr. S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal allowed.