2001 P﷓L C (C (PLP)

Mr. Muhammad Abbas son of Hassan Ali had filed an appeal against the order, dated 21-11-1994 under which his revision petition was rejected by respondent No.

1. His appeal was rejected against the punishment of removal from service vide order dated 1-8-1992.

2. The appellant was proceeded against departmentally on the basis of F.I.R. No.452 dated 19-11-1991 under which he was alleged to be involved in a criminal case of kidnapping. The appellant was booked under Hudood Ordinance on the basis of said F.I.R. and was prosecuted in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad.

3. The appellant was served with show-cause notice by the department. He was also challaned and sent to jail. Penalty of removal from service was imposed by the Additional S.P. Faisalabad vide order dated 1-8-1992. His appeal against the said order was rejected by the D.I.-G., Police, Faisalabad vide order dated 6-2-1993. He filed revision petition before the I.-G. Police. Meanwhile, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, announced the judgment on 2-5-1994. The Honourable Court acquitted him of the charges holding that prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. The revision petition was heard and decided on 13-11-1994 by the Additional Inspector-General, Police. The petition was rejected on the ground that no doubt the appellant was acquitted by the Court yet charges levelled against him in F.I.R. No.452 dated 19-11-1991 had been proved during the investigation of the case. The learned counsel has contended that the impugned said order is defective to the extent that the Additional Inspector-General Police relied on the investigation of the case and ignored the judgment of the Honourable Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. This amounts to giving . preference to the investigation of the Police to the judgment of the. Honourable Court which had specifically pointed out that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case.

5. It is fact. that the appellant was acquitted by the Honourable Additional Sessions Judge holding that the prosecution had- miserably failed to prove its case. It is, therefore, clear that the investigation was not up to the mark and was not acceptable by the Honourable Court. Ignoring the findings of the Court and passing an order relying on investigations which had been turned down by the Court is not fair. The judgment of the Honourable Court should have been given due consideration while considering the review petition. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and order dated 21-I1-1994 is set aside. The appellant is reinstated in service w.e.f. the date of his removal from service vide order dated 1-8-1992 with, all benefits admissible under the law. H.B.T./7/P (Sr. Trio.). Appeal accepted.