1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑The appellant Ansar Ali Mithani was S.H.O. at Police Station, Madeji, District Shikarpur when he was served with charge‑sheet accompanied by statement of allegations, on 9‑8‑1992. The statement of allegations reads as under:‑‑ "You S.I. Ansar Ali Mithani (474/S) had a servant namely Ali Hassan Jat who married with one Mst. Rani one year back and in her exchange the sister of Ali Hassan Jat was married to her brother Mehboob Gopang. After the marriage Ali Hassan Jat alongwith his wife used to reside in the houses of his cousins at Larkana as he did not his own house. After some time, some dispute arose between your servant Ali Hassan Jat and his cousins as a result of which Ali Hassan Jat with his wife left the house of his cousin. Mst. Rani wife of Ali Hassan Jat went to her father's house. The father of Mst. Rani tried to get the marriage of her daughter dissolved but could not succeed. On 16‑7‑1992 while you were posted as S.H.O. Police Station, Madeji District Shikarpur you deputed a Police Party headed by HC/43 Muhammad Saleh with three Police Constables namely PC/659 Nadir Ali, PC/1098 Azhar Ali and PC/958 Khair Muhammad of PS Madeji to Larkana by making false entry in the Roznamcha of Police Station vide E/No. 29 at 0605 hours and E/No. 32 at 0755 hours reg: departure and arrival ellbabove police staff in the investigation of case F.I.R. No. 23/92 under section 342, Q&D Ordinance 452/34, P.P.C. of Police Station Madeji who forcibly brought Mst. Rani from the house of her father illegally at Police Station, Madeji and allowed her to meet with her husband Ali Hassan Jat (your servant) in your presence. Preliminary enquiry into the matter has been conducted by Inspector Irshad Ahmed, SDPO‑II‑Ghari Yasin in which you were proved guilty of the above misconduct. You being a Police Officer have acted beyond your powers by interfering in a matter which is purely of civil nature." In his reply to the charge‑sheet the appellant made a complete denial of the allegations made against him. Thereafter, inquiry was held by Mr. Wajid Zia, A.S.P., Larkana who submitted his report, holding the appellant guilty of the interference in the civil matter. On the basis of his report the S.S.P Larkana passed an order dated 3‑12‑1992, inflicting penalty of forfeiture of appellant's one year approved service. Somehow the D.I.G.P. was not satisfied with the punishment awarded to the appellant. In exercise of his revisional powers, he issued notice to the appellant, to show cause why the major punishment of dismissal from service should not be awarded to him. The appellant submitted his reply to the notice. Unsatisfied with his reply the D.I.G., by his order dated 24‑2‑1993, enhanced the penalty of forfeiture of appellant's one year approved service to his reduction in rank from S.I. to A.S.I. The appellant preferred appeal from the D.I.G.P's. order to the I.G.P. but the same was rejected vide the I.G.P.'s order dated 26‑5‑1993. There was no indication in the said order that it was simultaneously communicated to the appellant. However, the appellant's plea was that he came to know about the said order on 24‑7‑1993 and thus filed the present appeal within 30 days thereof, on 11‑8‑1993. Mr. Naimatullah Oureshi appeared for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari, A.A.G. submitted his arguments on behalf of the official respondents. The appellant's learned counsel did not press the appeal on merits. Instead his prayer was for curtailment of the penalty which, in his opinion, was not in tune with the charge proved against the appellant. The learned AA: G. did not seriously oppose the reduction of the penalty. He, however, raised objection that the appeal was hit by limitation. We have given our best thought to the arguments made at the Bar. As for the learned A.A.G?s. objection with regard to limitation, we are of the view that in absence of the requisite endorsement of the impugned order to the appellant, his explanation as to the date when he received the order could not be lightly dismissed. Moreover it was not denied by the learned AA.G. that the impugned order was actually endorsed to the appellant after he had filed the present appeal. Thus, the appellant was not to blame for the delay he had made in filing the appeal. In the circumstances of the case the delay is condoned. Since the appeal was not pressed on merits, it would be futile to undertake the detailed discussion of merits of the case. We would confine ourselves only to the question of feasibility of curtailment of the penalty. As is disclosed in the last but one para of the enquiry report, the appellant had been held guilty of the interference in a purely civil matter. The question for our consideration would be whether the nature of the charge proved against the appellant called for severe punishment of reduction in rank. We have perused the statement of allegations with care. Obviously it spoke of police highhandedness inasmuch as that the police party led by the appellant raided the house of father of the victim girl Mst. Rani and brought the said girl to police station and it was there that she was made to join her husband who was servant of the appellant. In an attempt to prove these allegations, the Enquiry Officer had examined a number of witnesses including Mst. Rani herself, her mother and some police personnel. None of these witnesses supported the police version as reproduced in the statement of allegations. Against the police version, Mst. Rani's own statement was that she had herself gone to the police station, as she apprehended that her father would give her in marriage to some man of his choice. The statement of Mst. Rani recorded by A.D.M., Shikarpur confirms the above version. We are therefore inclined to believe that Mst. Rani had approached the police on her own for the reasons given by her in her statement before 'the A.D.M. Admittedly no F.I.R. was registered nor‑ any mention of the commission of any offence was made anywhere in the police record. Faced with this situation, we put a question to the appellant's learned counsel to tell us under what law the appellant acted by producing the aforesaid girl before the S.D.M., Shikarpur and got her statement recorded. He was, however, unable to give any satisfactory reply. We are therefore convinced that the appellant had acted without any power and his action of taking the girl to the Court for her statement amounted to undue interference in a civil matter. However police highhandedness reflected in the statement of allegations was not proved. Having arrived at this conclusion we feel that the penalty of reduction in rank which the learned D.I.G.P. awarded to the appellant was rather harsh. Therefore we convert the .said penalty into the penalty of forfeiture of appellant's two years approved service. Subject to this modification in the penalty, the appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./587/Sr.S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Order accordingly.