2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD AFZAL (MEMBER-I).--Appellant is A.S.-I. police, who was proceeded against on the allegations that he was directed to arrest an accused, one Muhammad Sohail Kabaria and to submit challan in the case, but he failed to follow. directions of his senior officers and in this way, he committed misconduct. It was also stated in the show-cause notice that regular inquiry was conducted into the charges and the appellant was found responsible for not arresting the accused and for not following the orders of his seniors. It was also alleged that the appellant failed to complete the investigation of criminal ease and he displayed irresponsible behaviour. Consequently, through impugned orders dated 18-2-2004, the appellant was awarded penalty of reduction in pay by two stages. He filed departmental appeal, hut the same was rejected through impugned orders dated 25-10-2005 hence present appeal in this Tribunal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant maintains that the charges levelled against the appellant, were false and baseless. Inquiry was conducted by A.S.P. in a slipshod manner and the appellant was not provided with any opportunity to produce his evidence. It is further stated that departmental appeal was rejected by the appellate authority in mechanical manner without appreciating the facts of the case. Point of discrimination has also been raised by learned counsel maintaining that the complaint of one Mst. Nasreen remained pending action with various Police Officers prior to posting of the appellant, who (other officers) had similarly failed to arrest accused Muhammad Sohail, hut no action was taken against any of them. It is next pointed out that the appellant had made concerted and sincere efforts to arrest the accused, Muhammad Sohail, but he failed to do so because the accused had slipped away from Joharabad and came back when the appellant was on leave, due to death of his mother.

3. Respondents have opposed the appeal, inter alia, on the grounds that the appellant had committed serious misconduct and that according to findings of Inquiry Officer, appellant was extending undue favours to the accused Muhammad Sohail Kabaria. It is next pointed out that the appellant was given adequate opportunity to produce his evidence and that no discrimination was made against the appellant. It is also maintained by the respondents that the appellant had referred to irrelevant facts in his appeal and that actually the appellant had failed to arrest accused Muhammad Sohail due to his ulterior motives.

4. I have considered contentions from both sides and also gone through the relevant record. I find that the appellant has in his appeal raised important point of discrimination as according to the appellant, the matter relating to arrest of accused one Muhammad Sohail, had also remained pending before other Police Officers prior to posting of the appellant, but action was taken only against the appellant. Appellant has also raised serious objections against the manner in which inquiry was conducted by A.S.P., who according to the appellant, was a new-corner and had failed to associate the appellant with proceedings and not given him any opportunity to cross-examine any witness. In this view of the matter and in the interest of justice, appeal is accepted and case is remanded to the concerned authority for fresh disciplinary proceedings against the appellant on the same allegations including regular inquiry to be conducted by an independent officer. Impugned orders are, therefore, set aside. H.B.T./9/PST Case remanded.