1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

GHULAM RASOOL SHAIKH (CHAIRMAN).‑The appellant was dismissed from service under the West Pakistan (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960 by an order dated 19‑2‑1970 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Headquarter, Karachi. He filed Departmental appeal to Deputy Inspector- General on 26‑2‑1970 which was rejected on 30‑4‑1970. Thereafter he filed revision petition to the Inspector‑General of Police which was rejected on 15‑9‑1970. He then filed mercy petition to the Home Secretary, Government of Sind, but no decision was taken on it. He therefore filed petition in the High Court under Article 201 of the Interim Constitution on 26‑1‑1973 which was admitted on 8‑8‑1973. In the meantime the Constitution of 1973, came into force and the Sind Services Tribunal was set up under Notification dated 24‑11‑1973. The appellant's petition was heard by the High Court on 15‑9‑1973, and it was decided that the matter was within the scope of Service Tribunal. Hence he filed an appeal in this Tribunal on 29‑10‑1976 under section 6 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The petition was miserably time barred but the delay was condoned by view of majority of the previous Tribunal. On the basis of preliminary inquiry conducted by Superintendent of Police Mr. Naqi Zaidi, the appellant was charge‑sheeted for collecting money from the prostitutes for Police Inspector Zafar Iqbal, while he was posted as orderly to the above Inspector at Napier Police Station Karachi, on account of patronising the prostitution between the period from 8‑11‑1967 to 13‑5‑1969. Regular inquiry was, therefore, ordered. The learned counsel for appellant contended that all the 13 witnesses examined during the regular inquiry including 6 witnesses who were examined in the preliminary inquiry did not support the allegations. The only witness who supported the case of the Department was Superintendent of Police Mr. Naqi Zaidi who in fact was appointed to hold the preliminary inquiry prior to regular inquiry. The evidence of Superintendent of Police Mr. Naqi Zaidi as has been established from the record was not based on his personal knowledge but he wholly and solely depended upon the statements of 6 witnesses (Abdul Ghaffar, Muhammad Ismail, Mst. Zainab, Vidhia, Mst. Shakila, Mst. Zaibunnisa and Mst. Ghulam Fatima) recorded by him in the preliminary inquiry and all these witnesses resiled from the statements during the regular inquiry conducted by another Superintendent of Police Mr. Sardar Abdul Aziz Khan. The learned counsel for appellant, therefore, contended that since none of the witnesses supported the allegations the evidence of Mr. Naqi Zaidi had no value and so the appellant deserved to be given a clean bill. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General conceded that the 6 witnesses examined during the preliminary inquiry were the same witnesses who were subsequently examined in the regular inquiry alongwith 7 other witnesses and that all such witnesses had resiled from their statements because of being threatened by the appellant. We have examined the proceedings of the inquiry and have come to the conclusion that all the witnesses examined against the appellant. Only one witness Superintendent of Police Mr. Naqi Zaidi whose statement has been recorded has based his opinion not from his personal knowledge but on the basis of statements of the witnesses who subsequently resiled from their original statements before the Inquiry Officer who was none less than the rank of Superintendent of Police. It is open to question as to how the witnesses could be threatend by the appellant being on suspension and of the rank of a police Constable. In the circumstances we hold that the charges levelled against the appellant are not substantiated and we, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Appeal allowed.