1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

?????? Superintendent of Police, ???????????????????? Special Branch, ?? Hyderabad: No. SSC/‑21‑40/1992 Hyd,??????????????????????????????????????????????????? dated 1‑1‑1992 Copy to:‑‑ (1) Inspector‑General of Police, Sindh, Karachi. (2) DIGP, Special Branch, Sindh, Karachi w/r to his endst. No. quoted above for favour of kind information. (3) The DIGP, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad. (4) The DIGP, Traffic and Highways Sindh, Karachi. . (5)The S.P. Traffic, Hyderabad for immediate n/action under intimation to this office. (6) The DSP, Special Branch, HQ Hyderabad. (7) The DSP, Special Branch, Mirpurkhas. (8) The DSP, Special Branch, Hyderabad City. (9) The G.O. Special Branch, Badin. (10) The Accountant/Special Branch, Hyderabad (in dup.). (11) Confidential Clerk, Special Branch, Hyderabad. (12) Order Book Clerk for entry into O.B. (13) Official concerned (by hand), for information and n/action and compliance. (Sd.) (ALI AKBAR BANGWAR) PPM, ?? Superintendent of Police, Special Branch." Hyderabad: On perusal of the above order it appears that it is not self‑speaking as to which charge was proved against the appellant. However, the wording of the impugned order shows that the competent authority has relied on instructions issued by the I-G.P., Sindh and dismissed those police personnel who were involved in ACE/Criminal cases. On further perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of the official respondents it is found that the charge against the appellant was his involvement in F.I.R. No. 47/88 under section 17(3) of Hudood Ordinance, 1979 filed at Police Station Mangli District Sanghar. He was challenged in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sanghar. The said Court vide its judgment dated 14‑1‑1991 acquitted the appellant under section ‑ 265(H), Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that this charge was the sole basis for his dismissal from service in which the appellant was acquitted by the Court much earlier than the passing of the impugned order. Apart from the merits of the case the learned counsel for the appellant has taken up the stand that entire proceedings against the appellant are illegal and invalid on account of non‑observation of the provisions of Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter called the said rules). He further argued that neither the appellant was issued show‑cause notice nor any charge‑sheet was framed and communicated to him. He was also not given personal hearing by the S.P. before passing the impugned order. We have given our best thought to the arguments advanced at bar. It seems that there has been clear departure from the procedure laid down in rule 6 of the said rules. It is a settled principle of law that the rules provide a clear procedure which has to be observed. It is after this procedure that the competent authority can pass such order as it may deem proper. Side tracking thereof will be on invalid. As stated above the competent authority in this case has acted under' the instructions of the I.‑G.P. Sindh and has thus not applied its mind while passing the impugned order which shows undue haste on its part and clear violation of the relevant rules. There is also no justification to take into consideration the charge of appellant's involvement in a crime, which the prosecution miserably failed to establish against the appellant before the competent Court. Under the circumstances it would be difficult to sustain the dismissal of the appellant from the service. In view of above reasons we accept the appeal with no order as to cost as earlier announced and set aside the impugned order of dismissal of the appellant from service. A.A./406/Sr.S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.