1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN). Appellant has assailed the impugned order dated 29-3-1988 passed by respondent No. 2 vide which he was dismissed from service with immediate, effect. He was serving in the office of S.S.P., Peshawar at the relevant time when a case was registered against him and another vide F.I.R. No. 663 dated 10-9-1987 under section 419/420/468/471, P.P.C. at Police Station East Cantt. Peshawar. Together with it he was also proceeded against departmentally by respondent No. 2 who passed the dismissal order on 29-3-1988. His appeal to respondent No. 1 having not been answered within the statutory period of 90 days, he has moved this Court through the present appeal alleging therein that the impugned action was ultra vires of the rules and law, mala fide, beyond the competence/jurisdiction of the respondents and against the principles of natural justice and equity. According to the appellant he was transferred from the post of Licence Clerk a year before the impugned action and the deposit of Rs.97,000 in the Bank in his name would not in any way connect him with the malpractice, corruption and misconduct. Cheque Book, office stamps and blank copes recovered from one Fazal Muhammad, Constable in no way implead the appellant in the commission of the offence. There is no evidence against him and he was punished for no fault of him. Respondents denied the allegations by raising objections regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, estoppel and the conduct of the appellant. Further they stressed that the appellant was proceeded against in a legal manner and he was never condemned unheard. We have given our patient hearing to the arguments advanced by both the sides. There is no denying the fact that against the appellant there is no solid proof or material on the record excepting the cheque book and deposit of Rs.97,000 in the Bank. However, it is cardinal principle of law that prosecution has to prove its case beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt and applying this principle on the facts of the present case, one can easily assess that this cannot connect the appellant with the charges of corruption, mala fides and misconduct. It was incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to summon the persons in whose favour the licences were issued with the connivance of the appellant and also some responsible officer from the Bank to confront the appellant with the deposit of the amount in the Bank. Besides this opinion of Handwriting Expert cannot be taken as a gospel truth unless and until he enters into the witness box to face the cross-examination of the aggrieved person. Much stress was laid on the deposit of the amount in the Bank and the opinion of the Handwriting Expert. But a perusal of the record would show that no cogent evidence was recorded in this respect by the Enquiry Officer. On the basis of the discussion made above, we have come to an irresistible conclusion that the appeal succeeds and the same is decreed in favour of the appellant with all the back benefits to him from the date he was dismissed from service. He is reinstated to the post, he was holding at the time of passing of the impugned order. Parties are left to bear their own costs and the file be consigned to the record room. A.A./109/Sr.N Appeal allowed.