1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN).‑‑ The appellant, a Sub- Inspector of Police has been removed from service by an order of the Commandant, Sind Constabulary, Karachi, for misconduct and corruption in the discharge of his official duty. The facts in brief are that on the night between 21st and 22nd November, 1977 the appellant was posted as Sub‑Inspector at Nabi Bux Police Station. He proceeded to the beat at Ranchoreline where the sweetmeat shopkeepers had displayed their sweetmeats on extended boards, it being the night preceding the Eid. The appellant, however, arrested sweetmeat shopkeepers, Amir Ali, Shahbazuddin, Haji Sardar Ahmad, Haji Rehmatullah, Mohammad Saeed and Mohammad Yasin for having obstructed the public street under the provisions of section 34, District Police Act. The shopkeepers were all taken to Nabi Bux Police Station at about 11.00 o'clock in the night and they were detained at the Police Station till 2.30 a.m. One Bundoo, brother of Haji Sardar Ahmad, it is alleged, collected Rs.100 and two seers of sweetmeats on behalf of each of the arrested persons and delivered the sweets and the cash collection to the appellant, whereupon their sureties were accepted and they were released on bail. The appellant thereafter personally produced the accused shopkeepers before the S.D.M. and the shopkeepers were convicted and fined Rs.100 each on their plea of guilty. Thereafter the shopkeepers made a representation in writing to the higher Police Authorities resulting in the appellant being served with a charge‑sheet dated 26‑11‑1978. After the explanation of the appellant was received it was found unsatisfactory and an inquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted the inquiry and examined the prosecution and defence witnesses. The Inquiry Officer was originally of the rank of D.S.P., who got transferred and ultimately Mr. Asghar Hussain Qazalbash, S.D.P.O., Garden Sub‑Division concluded the inquiry and submitted his report. Nabi Bux Police Station was within Garden Sub -Division and was in the jurisdiction of the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer relied on the statements of the junior Police Officers of Nabi Bux Police Station in preference to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and exonerated the appellant on the ground that the charge of corruption had not been strictly proved. Meanwhile the appellant was transferred to Sind Constabulary and the report was accordingly forwarded to the Commandant for necessary action. The report was scrutinized by the Authority, viz. Adam Khan Balouch, Commandant, Sind Constabulary. Karachi. He examined the transaction in proper perspective and found that it was obvious that the appellant had acted in a high‑handed manner by arresting respectable shopkeepers on the auspicious occasion, viz. night of the appearance of the moon preceding Eid Day. That in the ordinary course the appellant S. I. F should have released the shopkeepers on their personal bonds or at the most after taking surety on the spot as it would not have been difficult for such respectable persons to offer surety there and then. But the appellant taking advantage of his position and misusing his official powers put the respectable shopkeepers in the lock‑up and purported to act under section 34 of the District Police Act. All this was done simply to put pressure on the shopkeepers and their relatives to grease his palm by giving him illegal gratification. Otherwise, there was absolutely no reason for putting these respectable persons behind the bars on the eve of Chand Rat. The Commandant also found that the appellant had been punished previously on the charge of corruption and misuse of his official position. He accordingly found that he was not fit to be retained in the Police Force. After serving with a final show‑cause notice and informing him of the proposed penalty, the appellant was finally removed from service. He preferred appeal before the D. I. G. who found no justification to interfere with the order, having been satisfied that the charge of corruption had been fully proved against the appellant. Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan on behalf of the appellant has led us through the evidence recorded during the inquiry and has argued that no one can be punished on mere presumptions. According to Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan, the charge of corruption has not been satisfactorily proved, since it rests on the evidence of P.W. Bundoo, who collected the sweetmeats and cash and delivered them to the appellant. However, the evidence of Bundoo appears to have been corroborated by the facts and circumstances of the case. The streets in city of Karachi are permanently obstructed from Saddar to Mere weather Tower, but the persons selling their goods on these streets are never arrested and put behind the bars even on non‑festival days. It has been rightly remarked by the Commandant that there was no need to arrest respectable shopkeepers on the night preceding Eid for a minor offence under section 34 of the District Police Act. Since the identity of these shopkeepers was known and they could not have left their shops and absconded, the proper course for an honest Sub‑Inspector should have been to take their personal bonds at the spot instead of taking them to the police station and confining them in the lock‑up ostensibly for want of sureties. It could not have been difficult for these shopkeepers to provide sureties there and then if only the appellant, Sub‑Inspector had shown an inclination to accept them. The whole idea was to degrade respectable persons in order to compel them to pay illegal gratification. It may be pointed out at this stage that the quantum of evidence required for proving a criminal charge cannot be the same as that required for an adverse finding in a departmental inquiry. The purpose of the proceedings in a case regarding criminal offence is to punish the culprit by sentencing him to imprisonment and fine. On the other hand, the purpose of proceeding against an officer departmentally, is to assess from the facts and circumstances whether the officer is fit to be retained in service. As has already been seen, the appellant has certainly acted in a very high‑handed manner and has gone out of the way to put respectable persons behind the bars during the night for obvious reasons. The learned Commandant, Sind Constabulary has, therefore, rightly remarked that the sooner the appellant is got rid of, the better. Such persons have given a bad name to the entire Police Force and are certainly not fit to be retained in the Force. In the result we find no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. A. E. Appeal dismissed.