1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

5. It is apparent that the Enquiry Officer had mainly relied on the evidence of these star prosecution witnesses i.e. the S.P. and the D.C. Sheikhupura and the A.C., Nankana Sahib. We have, therefore, carefully gone through the statements of these three witnesses in particular. Mr. Muhammad Sarfraz Khan, the then S.P., Sheikhupura had deposed before the Enquiry Officer that the appellant "did not enjoy a happy reputation in Nankana Sahib. It was rife in the area that he accepted money from his subordinates but there was no specific complaint. The matter was discussed by him with the A.C., Nankana Sahib and D.C., Sheikhupura during routine meetings who also expressed concern over the matter". In response to the questions of the Enquiry Officer the witness also deposed that the discussion regarding the integrity of the appellant with the D.C. and the A.C. took place on different occasions sometimes at the Headquarters and at others at Nankana Sahib and both of them had doubts about the integrity of the appellant. He further deposed that "whatever I derived about his integrity that I quoted and reduced into writing by my different displeasures to him during his service under my command and such views were also passed on to the D.I.-G. and I.-G. of, Police by me." 6 Learned counsel for the appellant has conclusively established that all these displeasure letters related to the appellant's performance and not to his integrity and that all these letters were removed from the Character Roll of the appellant because the charges based on the letters of displeasures could not be substantiated during the departmental enquiry conducted against the appellant. Evidently, the witness was mixing up the appellant's performance with his integrity when he was answering questions put to him by the Enquiry Officer.

7. Not only that the appellant never received any report doubting his integrity during his entire service career from 1961 till 1988 (36 confidential reports) but even in 1985 his integrity was adjudged as `good' by this very Superintendent of Police. In the face of this certificate how could he testify before the Enquiry Officer that the appellant enjoy `happy reputation' during that period?

8. Mr. Usama Maud, the Deputy Commissioner Sheikhupura stated before the Enquiry Officer as under: "Once, we were discussing each SDPO in Sheikhupura and during the discussion, Raja Muhammad Sarfraz Khan, Superintendent of Police; Sheikhupura expressed his dissatisfaction over the performance of Mr, Muhammad Aslam, the then SDPO, Nankana Sahib. I was at that time new to Sheikhupura district and was not fully aware about the reputation and integrity of various police officers including Mr. Muhammad Aslam. Later on, I realized that views of the Superintendent of Police. Sheikhupura held good to the point that Mr. Muhammad Aslam, SDPO was not effective in the performance of his duties."

9. He further deposed as follows: - "I expressed my views to Raja Muhammad Sarfraz Khan Superintendent of Police also that somehow the performance of Mr. Muhammad Aslam was not upto the mark and that he being his superior officer, should call him and advise him to overcome his shortcomings. The Superintendent of Police then told me that he had already advised Mr. Muhammad Aslam verbally as also in writing, not to mention the various explanations he has asked from the officer in a number of cases. These days, we are unfortunately witnessing a decadence in the level of integrity of functionaries of nearly all departments. This is more alarming in the case of Magistracy and Police because they have the task of ensuring peaceful atmosphere for the citizens of the country. The general reputation of Mr. Muhammad Aslam was not satisfactory and it became more pronounced when coupled with the officer's lack of effective control over the police."

10. With reference to his discussion with Mr. Shaukat Ali Malik, A.C., Nankana Sahib, PW-2 on the subject, Mr. Usama Maud submitted that the A.C. "did not specifically complain against the integrity of Mr. Muhammad Aslam, SDPO in writing, but he did express his frustration over the lack of swift action against the culprits by the officer. There is no doubt that the integrity of Mr. Muhammad Aslam was controversial. Raja Muhammad Sarfraz Khan, Superintendent of Police was also not satisfied with the integrity of the accused."

11. The D.C. further explained that "integrity of Mr. Muhammad Aslam was never discussed in the company of Superintendent of Police and Assistant Commissioner, N4nkana Sahib collectively but it was certainly discussed separately. Discussions with Raja Muhammad Sarfraz Khan were more frequent".

12. To a question asked by the appellant during the cross-examination the witness replied that "there was no sense in writing a letter to the S.P. regarding integrity of the accused when the SP himself had reservations about it". In response to another question he stated that he did not exactly remember any specific name or any member of group of public but during his public dealings he has been receiving public complaints at Sheikhupura wherein the complainants expressed dissatisfaction about the appellant's working.

13. The above extracts taken from the Deputy Commissioner's deposition before the Enquiry Officer relating to the integrity of the appellant clearly show that although the DC considered the integrity of the appellant controversial he never took up this matter with the SP in writing and that he had no documentary evidence to substantiate the allegation of controversial integrity.

14. To a question asked by the Enquiry Officer whether his discussions in the D.C. office suggest any controversy regarding integrity of the appellant, Malik Shaukat Ali, AC Nankana Sahib replied in the negative. To another question asked by the appellant the witness categorically stated that there were no written complaints submitted to him regarding the appellant's integrity nor was he ever k d by the DC or the SP to hold a probe into the appellant's integrity.

15. In the concluding part of his report the Enquiry Officer has given his findings as under: "The most creditable witnesses were District Magistrate Usama Maud who appeared as PW-4 as head of the criminal administration and Superintendent of Police, Sheikhupura, Mr. Muhammad Sarfraz Khan (PW-1). Both the officers are primarily concerned with the supervision of working and conduct of their officers."

16. According to the Enquiry Officer the evidence of the SP and the DC proves that the integrity of the accused was controversial. The objection that there were no written complaints in this regard has been brushed aside by the Enquiry Officer by saying that any written complaint in this regard would have been only conclusive evidence to establish him as a corrupt officer. There could be no better admission on the part of the Enquiry Officer that he has based his findings on insufficient and inconclusive evidence. He has also not given any credit to the testimony of eight police officials, four MPAs, one landlord and an Advocate, a Tehsildar and a District Attorney. All of them had stated before the Enquiry Officer that the appellant enjoyed `excellent reputation' aria there was no complaint against his integrity. Subordinate police officers also stated that the appellant had never demanded illegal gratification from them and that he enjoyed `excellent reputation' but the Enquiry Officer has given no credence to the evidence of these witnesses saying that in a society where corruption has been accepted as a way of life no one comes forward for testimony against any officer for being corrupt and that the defence witnesses produced by the appellant were not independent particularly in the background of our moral decadence.

17. It appears that to the Enquiry Officer the test of credibility is the high office of a witness. It is interesting to note that at the time of this enquiry the appellant was under suspension whereas Mr. Muhammad Sarfraz Khan and Mr. Usama Maud were still working as SP and DC Sheikhupura respectively. The appellant had, therefore, no hold on any of the witnesses and yet all the police officials deposed in his favour.

18. The foregoing makes it abundantly clear that while the SP and the DC, Sheikhupura and the AC Nankana Sahib doubted the integrity of the appellant, none of them had any proof thereof or written complaint against him. In fact, during the course of their deposition before the Enquiry Officer they admitted that there was no specific complaint in writing against the appellant. Since the witnesses were unable to substantiate the allegation of corruption, their opinions were, therefore, vague and were based merely on conjectures and surmises. There has to be a documentary proof of such allegations before a person could be condemned on the basis of these charges. It is obvious that no such complaints were ever received or collected by them. Otherwise they would have probed into these allegations and confronted the appellant with them. It is also evident that throughout the entire proceedings there was no fair and complete disclosure of any specific allegation of corruption and the grounds on which they were based. As this minimal requirement of law and procedure remained unsatisfied, this amounts to violation of law and principles of natural justice. Reliance is being placed on this Tribunal's judgment handed down in Appeal No.705 of 1988: Noor Khan, S.I. v. SSP, Rawalpindi P L D 1986 S C 162; Government of the Punjab v. Tasaddaq Hussain Bokhari 1982 P L C (C.S.) 582: Muzaffar Hussain Shah v. Government of Sindh P L D 1989 S C 335; Samin-ud-Din Qureshi v. Collector of Customs and 1982 P L C (C.S.) 431 Siddique Suleman v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

19. The learned counsel for the appellant's contention that the appellate authority's order rejecting the appellant's appeal is a complete nullity because it has been passed by Respondent No.2 without application of mind would not seem to be without substance. Although the letters of displeasure conveyed to the appellant regarding his performance had been withdrawn and removed from his CR dossier, yet the appellate authority has made these letters a basis for upholding the penalty imposed on the appellant. The appellate authority has also brushed aside the testimony of all other witnesses except that of the DC and the SP by saying that "the evidence of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police in respect of the reputation of a subordinate police officer is surely more reliable than the hearsay statements of a few unconcerned laymen."

20. Another important flaw in the departmental proceedings pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant during his submissions before the Tribunal was that while ordering the de novo enquiry and entrusting it to Mr. Hamid Adam Malik the then SP, Special Branch, the Authority i.e. the IGP wrote him a detailed letter wherein a visible effort was made to make the Enquiry Officer designate biased against the appellant by stating the grounds on which the Findings in the first enquiry were not accepted by the Authority. For example, in connection with allegation No.4 the Authority has observed as under: "One does not understand as to how the charge could not be established." It simply meant that whatever be the truth the Enquiry Officer should have seen to it that the charge was proved. The departmental proceedings can be quashed on this short ground alone.

21. In view of the foregoing, we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned orders. There are no orders as to costs. M.Y.H./316/Sr.P. Appeal accepted.