2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi so also Mr. Seydian Zaidi, A.A.-G. for respondents and with their assistance have also perused record and citations submitted by the Advocate for the appellant. The main contentions of the learned counsel are that the appellant was appointed as Constable and due to his unblemished career and passing of different exams with top-position was awarded promotions and 76 Certificates with cash awards. His career is unblemished and he has served Police Department for about 23, years. According to him within a short period of posting at the Police Station Ubauro the appellant arrested 27 criminals and dacoits. He has further argued that as soon as A.S.I. Feroz Anjum came to Police Station Ubauro, he registered F.I.R. No.4 of 1998 and proceeded to the scene of offence which was at the distance of 15 killo meter from P.S. He was making all over efforts to arrest the culprits when he received reprimanding notice of S.S.P. on 13-1-1998 and again a show cause notice alongwith statement of allegations by D.I.-G. on 15-1-1998. He has also argued that D.I.-G. has acted as authority as well as Authorised Officer for that he has relied on a Circular of the I.-G. dated 6-7-1989 wherein para. 4 of the same Circular it is mentioned that personal hearing and final show-cause notice are preconditions to pass final order by Authority. According to the Advocate for the appellant no final show-cause notice was given to the appellant by the respondent No.2. He relied on PLC (C. S.) 1983 P.1156 which reads as under:-- "R.7(8)-Authorised Officer recommending major penalty and forwarding case authority--Opportunity to show-cause against proposed recommendation not given to accused by Authorised Officer before forwarding case to Authoirty - Omission fatal rendering penalty order liable to be struck down." He has also challenged order of respondent No. l whereby the appeal of the appellant was rejected on 3-7-1998. According to him this order is not a speaking order and the appellant was not called for personal hearing nor an opportunity was afforded to him to explain his case, nor his previous record was considered. The same reads as under:-- "The appeal of S.I. Mir Muhammad Chandio has been considered by the competent Authority and filed." He has argued that there is no charge of misconduct as provided by Rule 2(5). He has also argued that SSP has reprimanded while D.I.-G. issued show-cause notice as such there is a double punishment. He has also argued that no period is mentioned in the order as to how long the appellant will remain in reduction of rank which is a violative of the Rule 55 of Sindh Civil Service Rules Manual which reads as under:-- (55) If a Government servant is, on account of misconduct or inefficiency, reduced to a lower grade or post or to a lower stage in his time scale, the authority ordering such reduction shall state the period for which it shall be effective and whether on restoration, it shall operate to postpone future increments and if so to what extent." He has also argued that even after this incident the appellant was posted at different and important Police Stations, his previous record was not considered as such he has relied on PLD 1979 Lahore P.783 and PLC (C.S.) 1981 P.161. He has also argued that against the A.S.I Feroz Anjum who was posted alongwith three constables at the Mir Khosh regulator no action has been taken though he was the time of incident while the action has been taken against the appellant who was posted about 15 k. m. from the scene of offence. As such he has relied on 1982 PLC (C.S.) P.119. He has also relied on PLD 1962 Dacca P.132. 1991 PLC (C.S.)

172. PLD 1976 Lahore P.1030. His main thrust is that the D.I.-G. has acted as authority as well as authorised officer and has awarded major penalty though he was not competent. Secondly no period of reduction in rank is given in the order. No final show-cause notice was given to the appellant nor he was afforded opportunity of personal hearing by the I.-G. Police at the stage of disposing appeal, so also his order is non-speaking and is liable to be set aside. Mr. Zaidi, A.A.-G for the respondents has conceded on the main two grounds. According to him respondent No.2 D.I.-G. has acted as Authorised Officer as well as Authority. As such according to him he was not competent to award the major penalty and could have award the minor penalty only. He has also conceded on the point that the period of reduction in rank is not given in the order which is violative of the Rule 55 of the Sindh Civil Services Rules Manual. However, he requests that the case may be remanded. As stated above we have heard the arguments patiently and with the assistance of both the counsels have also perused the record and citations quoted by the Advocate for appellant so also the circular of the I.-G. and other relevant rules. The Show-cause Notice issued by the respondent No.2, dated 15-1-1998 shows that act of gross misconduct and inefficiency while perusal of the Sindh Police (E & D Rules, 1988 in respect of misconduct reads as under:-- "(v) 'Misconduct' means conduct prejudicial to good order or discipline in the Police, or contrary to the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules or unbecoming of a Police Officer and a gentleman, any commission or omission which violates any provision of any law or rules regulating the functions and duty of a Police Officer or to bring or attempt or indirectly to bear on the Government or any Government Officer in respect of any matter relating to the appointment, promotion, transfer, punishment, retirement or other conditions of service of a Police Officer. " In the same rule we have also observed under the heading of General Proceedings. We have failed to find any such order of respondent No.2 1 thought it is mandatory to pass an order before doing away with the enquiry. We have also observed that while the immediate boss, the Senior Superintendent of Police has only reprimanded the appellant on 13-1-1998 but the respondent No.2 after two days i.e. 15-1-1998 issued show-cause notice. We have also observed with pain that the order passed by Respondent No. l is absolutely non-speaking order and not single reason has been assigned as to why the appeal of the appellant was rejected, so much so that no chance of personal hearing was afforded nor he was given a chance to present his case, we have also observed that respondent No.2 had acted as Authorised Officer as well as the authority and has awarded major, penalty which is absolutely illegal and has no bearing in the eyes of law. We also agree with the A.A.-G. and the Advocate for appellant that no period of reduction in rank is given in the order as provided by Rule 55 of the Sindh Civil Services Rules Manual. As such order itself is void, illegal. We therefore, have no option but to allow this appeal and set aside the orders of respondent No.2 as well as that of Respondent No.l with the directions that the intervening period may be treated as leave due to him. However, respondents are at liberty to proceed afresh after observing all the formalities as required by law. There is no order as to costs. H.B.T./8/K (Sr. Trib.) Appeal allowed.