1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant Amir Ghani was dismissed from service as a constable vide impugned order dated 9-2-1987 and after availing the remedy of departmental appeal unsuccessfully he has knocked at the doors of the Tribunal to seek his redress, alleging therein that he was recruited as a Foot Constable in 1975 and he alongwith his colleague Mir Abbas constable was kidnapped on 13-3-1986 by one Faizullah S/o Abdullah Jan. When both were later on recovered, instead of proceeding against the said Faizullah an influential person; they were suspended. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant resulting in the preliminary enquiry and then after framing the charge-sheet and summary of allegations the enquiry was conducted in which the impugned action was recommended by the Enquiry Officer which was acted upon by respondent No.l and also in appeal by the respondent No.l. lie challenged the same as illegal, without jurisdiction, in contravention of the law and rules and not binding upon him. Respondents submitted the written statement, denying the allegations, the record was perused and in the light of the arguments the appeal is decided as under: Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Enquiry Officer has taken into consideration the irrelevant facts while making the recommendation against the appellant. The charge of the commission of sodomy by the appellant with a beautiful boy was not proved and the appellant remained absent during the enquiry which fact also makes the enquiry proceedings illegal and arbitrary to the rules. On the other hand learned Special P.P. argued that the charges against the appellant were proved, that the standard of the proof of a criminal act in a criminal Court of law is not the same as in the departmental enquiry. Moreover, the charge of absence from duty was specifically and particularly proved in the departmental proceedings against the appellant. We have given our patient hearing to the arguments advanced by both the sides and have come to the conclusion that it is crystal clear from the record that appellant was a habitual absentee and this fact was brought forth on the file in clear and express tone. So far as the standard of proof of a criminal case is concerned it is distinguishable from the standard in a departmental enquiry because before an Enquiry Officer the reputation of a Government employee is also a material factor in determining the charges against him. In a criminal Court of law the prosecution is bound to bring his allegation specifically, particularly and definitely but before the Enquiry Officer, it would be sufficient if it is established against a Government employee that the public holds him adversely. However, this conclusion must be established even before an Enquiry Officer and the charge o sodomy in the instant case was not proved against the appellant because the person Le the victim of the offence did not appear before the Enquiry Officer to substantiate this allegation. Appellant was dismissed from service. He is a young person and rendered at least 12/13 years service. He is a family man and keeping into consideration the above factors we accept the appeal in the terms o changing the punishment of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement, leaving the parties to bear their own costs and the file be consigned to the record room. S.Q. /70/Sr.N Appeal partly accepted.