2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S.M. Sayedain Zaidi, A.A.-G. for the Official Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th March, 1999. ABDUL MAJID KHANZADA (CHAIRMAN).

The brief facts as stated are that the appellant was appointed as Constable on 15-10-1991 and after qualifying various Examinations he was confirmed. Respondent No.3. issued a show-cause notice to the appellant on 21-7-1996, which reads as under:-- "Complainant (Driver) Muhammad Mithal son of Bahadur Jakhro resident of Mandoo ji-Wandh Teh: G. Yaseen lodged the F.I.R. No.9 of 1996, dated 23-6-1996 at 230 hrs: at Police Station New Amrote, in which he has narrated the facts that he has been robbed by (1) Punhal son of Parial Gishkori, armed with Gun, (2) Ghouse Bux son of Latif Ali armed with Gun, (3) Qamaruddin son of A. Hakeem Gishkori having Lathi (4) Imam Bux son of Dino Golo with Lathi Dacoits and snatched/taken away the valuable articles viz.,

1. Cash Rs.2,500 Watch Seiko V (2) Tape v./Rs.1,300 (3) Tool Box instruments valued Rs.1,200 (4) Loud speakers etc., valued Rs.800 (5) One Watch v. Rs.300 from Liaqat Ali Dal. Total robbed property was recovered from your possession. Your indulging in such a nafarous activities, has given a bad name to the department as such your further reputation will affect on other Force. Thus you have rendered yourself liable for severe action." The appellant submitted his reply denying the allegations on 25-7,1996. His reply was not found satisfactorily as such he was dismissed from the service on 13-8-1996 by respondent No.3. He accordingly preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, respondent No.2 which was also rejected vide order, dated 13-11-1996. As such he preferred a review before respondent No. 1 which was also rejected vide order, dated 7-5-1997, as such he preferred this appeal before this Tribunal on 2-6-1997. The main contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are that the name of the appellant does not appear in the F.I.R. nor the appellant was challaned before the Competent Court nor there is any recovery from the possession of the appellant. He has further argued that the name of the four accused namely: (1) Punhal son of Parial Gishkori, (2) Ghouse Bux son of Lutif Ali, (3) Qamaruddin son of A. Hakim Gishkori, (4) Imam Bux son of Dino Golo appear in the F.I.R. No.9 of 1996 as well as in the show-cause notice issued by respondent No.3 on 21-7-1996. All the four accused were challaned before the Sessions Judge Shikarpur and they were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge Shikarpur on 4th January, 1997, copy of the Judgment is filed by the appellant alongwith tote memo. of appeal at page 25 Annexure 'C'. As such according to the Advocate for the appellant, the appellant had nothing to do with the crime with which he stands charged and show-cause notice was issued to him and subsequently he was dismissed from the service. Learned A.A.-G. has mostly argued as per his written statement when he was asked to show as to how the appellant is involved in crime he showed his inability and according to him neither the name of the appellant appears in the F.I.R. nor he was challaned before the Sessions Judge, Shikarpur nor according to him any robbed property is recovered from his custody as per Moshirnama available in record which wvas summoned by the A.A.-G. from S.S.P. Shikarpur. He has very frankly agreed that the appellant as per record in F.I.R. and challan is in no way connected in the crime. We have heard the arguments of both the Counsels and with their assistance perused the record available with the A.A.-G. and personal file of the appellant as well as F.I.R. No-9 of 1996. We fail to understand as to how and on what ground and evidence a show-cause notice dated 21-8-1996 was issued to the appellant and he was dismissed from service w. e.f. 11-8-1996 afternoon and his appeal was rejected by Deputy Inspector General of Police, respondent No.2 on 13-11-1996 without assigning any reason except that the appellant could not tender any satisfactory reply. His order is neither the speaking order nor the D.I.-G. of Police, Larkana applied his judicious mind as such this order in the eye of law is not at all an order. In review, by respondent No. l i.e. I.-G. Police it is simply, mentioned that his request has not been accepted, hence rejected. If high-ups of the departments like I.-G. Police rejected appeal or review without applying their judicious mind then how it can be presumed that justice will be done with the subordinate staff. Even otherwise four accused who were challaned before the Sessions Judge were acquitted on 4th January, 1997. As such we have no alternate but to set aside the impugned orders, dated 13-8-1996, 13-11-1996 and 7-5-1997 of Respondents Nos.3, 2 and respectively. We allow this appeal with the observation that the intervening period shall be treated as leave due, with no orders as to costs. H.B.T./13/K (Sr. Trib) Appeal allowed.