1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Sanaullah Khan Gandapur for Appellant" Abdul Qayuum, Prosecuting Inspector for Respondents. Date of institution: 27th January, 1988. MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant Khuda Bakhsh has moved the Tribunal through the present appeal under section 4 of the Tribunals Act, 1974, against the impugned order dated 10-2-1987 passed by respondent No. 2 vide which he was compulsorily retired with retrospective effect from the date of his dismissal i.e. 18-8-1973 and against the order dated 3 1-1988 passed by the Provincial Government, denying the relief to him. According to the appellant he joined the Police Force as a Foot Constable on 7-1-1952 and was promoted as Head Constable. In 1964 he was posted as Cashier in Police Lines, D.I. Khan where he served efficiently and honestly. However, in 1972 when Mr. Mir Kazim Khan, Sub-Inspector was appointed as Lines Officer he submitted a wrong report to the then S.P. about shortage of Rs.15,000 which resulted in registration of a case F.I.R. No. 98, dated 27-5-1972 under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against the appellant. however, during the investigation of the case, it came to light that the Sub-Inspector Mr. Kazim Khan alongwith his colleagues was responsible for tampering with the record and they were suspended by respondent No. 3 but later on got themselves reinstated and instead the appellant was mala fide involved in the case mentioned above and was side by side forced to face the departmental enquiry. In the departmental enquiry he was exonerated of all the charges except the one for non-payment of Rs.25 to one Mr. Rasul Dad Khan Lambardar which actually was distributed by the said Lines Officer. This was a petty amount but the respondent No. 4 ordered his dismissal on 8-8-1973. The criminal case was in progress against him and finally he was acquitted under section 249-A, C.P.C. on 14-10-1986 by the Special Judge Anti- Corruption, Peshawar Camp at D.I. Khan and then he approached the I.-G.P. for his re-instatement and for setting aside the previous dismissal order, who was pleased to convert the punishment of dismissal into compulsory retirement with retrospective effect and feeling aggrieved by the same, he approached the Provincial Government but to no use; hence the present appeal, on the grounds that the punishment awarded to him earlier as well as the conversion of dismissal into compulsory retirement made later on was void, arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice. No offence was attributed to him. He was innocent and was made the scape goat. He prayed for his re-instatement with all back benefits. Claim was refuted by the respondent. In para 2 of the written statement the respondents admitted the registration of a case against the appellant at the instance of Mr. Mir Kazim Khan. In para 3 they also admitted that Mir Kazim Khan was not co-operative with the 1.0. in the case, so requisite documents were taken into possession by the 1.0. at the inter Mention of the D.I.-G. and the Lines Officer, Mir Kazim Khan and the then P.I. was suspended but re-instated later on. In para. 7 the respondents pointed out that his appeal to the Service Tribunal was also decided in negative on account of being barred by time and he cannot now approach the Tribunal to seek his redress. Arguments heard and the record perused. There is no denying the fact that appellant was dismissed from service originally, in consequence of the alleged embezzlement of Rs.25 and his appeals to the departmental authority as well as to the Tribunal were dismissed. However, the criminal case was pending against him which was decided by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption on 14-10-1986 acquitting the appellant under section 249-A, C.P.C. After that decision the appellant approached the I.-G. Police through an application and he was pleaded to convert the punishment of dismissal into compulsory retirement taking into consideration the acquittal order passed by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, but the said order was made operative from the date of the dismissal. The objection of the learned Special P.P. that after the failure of the first round of appeals the appellant was barred to move the Tribunal, holds no ground in the wake of the order dated 10-2-1987 passed by the Inspector-General of Police. At the application/appeal of the appellant he took cognizance of the matter afresh. So it cannot be said that the appellant and for that matter this Tribunal is debarred to take any action in relation to the present appeal. The impugned order suffers from legal infirmity as the dismissal cannot be retrospective so by accepting the present appeal we set aside the impugned order and modify the same by ordering the compulsory retirement from 10-2-1987. The period between 8-8-1973 and 10-2-1987 is treated as extraordinary leave without pay. Parties are left to bear their own costs and the file be consigned to the record room. AA./102/Sr. N Order accordingly.