2019 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUSHIR ALAM, J.

Respondent was departmentally proceeded for financial impropriety. After holding due inquiry and investigation in the matter, he was awarded major penalty of removal from service on 29.09.2014; his departmental appeal could not be decided within time, therefore, he approached the Service Tribunal against the impugned order dated 29.09.2014. The learned Service Tribunal in consideration of the fact that the witness who deposed against the respondent was not examined in presence of the respondent, set aside the order of removal from service and directed the petitioner to initiate de novo inquiry.

2. Learned Deputy Attorney General has drawn our attention to the first confessional statement of the respondent recorded after receipt of the complaint , which is available at page 41 of C.M.A. No. 875-K/2018, wherein to a question, the respondent made following statement before the inquiry officer:-

3. In inquiry proceedings that were conducted before the inquiry officer, to a specific question, he has made the following statement:- "I have never demanded anything from any contractor as a token, however whenever the contractor receive payments, they give me a token of Rupees ten to twenty thousands at their own accord. I admit this as my mistake to receive such gifts and I am ashamed of this act."

4. He was questioned by the Court of inquiry and in response to questions Nos. 2, 4 and 7, he replied as under:- Question No. 2 In your opinion, why a charge sheet has been remanded to you? Answer No. 2 I had confessed in front of Court of inquiry that a representative of contractor had paid me Rs.10,000/ - to Rs.20,000/- on the eve of Eids. Question No.

4. How may times did he pay you and how much amount? Answer No. 4. 3-4 times totally to Rs.40000/- Question No.

7. In your confession statement given to Court of Inquiry of Frontier Works Organization, you have written that on receipt of payment, contractors used to give me Rs.10,000/- to 20,000/-, now you are denying by saying that it was Eidee, please explain? Answer No. 7 As payments were made to contractors on the eve of Eids, therefore, I am not denying my previous statement given in front of court."

5. There is no denial of such statements. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that these statements were made under duress and pressure. When learned counsel for the respondent was confronted as to whether any grievance was made as to his statements having been obtained under duress and pressure, he was not able to demonstrate from the record that any such grievance was raised. Merely raising a technical question as the witness who deposed against the respondent was not examined may alone not be sufficient to dispel the effect of confession made by him before the inquiry officer as noted above. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has misdirected itself by taking too charitable view in a matter of corruption in a disciplined force. Accordingly, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned judgment. MWA/S-44/SC Petition allowed.