1979 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑ Ss. 4 & 5‑Government servant ‑ Dismissal ‑ Appeal‑Evidence against accused official not only false but concocted and completely discrepant on material aspect of case‑Enquiry Officer giving detailed reasons for holding official not guilty‑Even officer holding preliminary inquiry finding allegation against appellant to be false Departmental Appellate Authority not applying its independent mind but passing order after consulting dismissing authority and incorrectly stating Inspector holding preliminary inquiry having found ailegations to be correct‑Appeal allowed and appellant re‑instated. GHULAM RASOOL SHAIKH (CHAIRMAN): This appeal has been filed against the order of dismissal passed by the Superintendent of Police, Larkana and confirmed by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police in appeal. The appellant was Head Constable posted at Larkana on 15‑1‑1976 he was charge‑sheeted that on 24‑7‑1975 he had taken Mst. Darya Khatoon daughter of Muhammad Ramzan who was related to him, to his quarter in the police lines and attempted to commit rape upon her. This charge‑sheet was based on the preliminary enquiry held in pursuance of the complaint made by the woman. He submitted an explanation refuting the allegations. Enquiry Officer was appointed and enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer made a report that the allegations made against the appellant had not been established and false accusation has been made against him on account of the old enmity. The S. P. however, did not agree with the finding and entertained the view that the accusation had been established. He stated that the allegation was fully supported by the witnesses. On the basis of his opinion he dismissed the appellant from service. An appeal was filed to the D. I.‑G. but it was also dismissed. Consequently the present appeal was filed. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments we are clearly of the opinion that the order passed by the S. P., Larkana is unwarranted and unjustified. It is rather very strange that he observed that the prosecution witnesses had fully supported the allegations despite the fact that they were contradictory statements made by the witnesses. We have perused the evidence and there can be no matter of the doubt that the evidence is not only false but is concocted and is complete discrepant on the material aspect of the case. We fully endorse the vied taken by the Enquiry officer who had given detailed reasons in reaching the conclusions. Even the Officer who had conducted the preliminary enquiry was also of the view that the allegations made against the appellant were false. We have also perused the order of the D. I.‑G. and it is rather said that he did not apply his independent mind to the evidence which wa brought on record but he passed the order after consulting the S. P. as has been indicated by the D. I. ‑G. himself in his order. Our view is further confirmed by the statement made by the D. I: G. in his order to the effect that the Inspector who held the preliminary enquiry found the allegations correct but this statement is not supported by the matererial on record. On the contrary the Enquiry Officer observed in his report that the Inspector who held the enquiry had expressed his opinion that the matter seemed to be suspicious one due to dispute over an old enmity. In the circumstances we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appellant be re‑instated in service forthwith. Appeal allowed.