1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑The appellant, Qurban Ali Sandano was Sub‑Inspector, CIA Police, Larkana when he was served with show‑cause notice dated 9‑8‑1992. The "Grounds of Action" as mentioned in the notice were under:‑‑ "There is general complaint that you are mixed up with the criminals. Besides a case FIR No. 68/92 under section 353/37‑A‑II, P.P.C. of P.S. A. Section Larkana has also been registered against you at P.S. A Section, Larkana." In his reply to the show‑cause notice, the appellant denied the allegations of "mixing up with criminals" as false and fabricated. As regards his involvement in the criminal case his version was that on 30‑4‑1992, Excise Inspector Azhar‑ul‑Haq Shaikh and other staff members of Excise had trespassed into the house of his cousin without any reasonable cause and authority and had maltreated the womenfolk, as a result of which F.I.R. No. 67/92 under section 337/A‑ITN, 452, 148, 149 was registered at P.S. A Section Larkana. As a counterblast, he has added, the said Excise Inspector had involved him in the F.I.R. mentioned in the Grounds of Action hereinabove. After giving the appellant personal hearing in Orderly Room, the S.S.P., Larkana who was obviously unsatisfied with the appellant's both written and oral explanation passed an order dated 2‑11‑1992 awarding to him the major penalty of compulsory retirement. The appellant challenged the said order in departmental appeal before the DIGP but the same was rejected by the DIGP order dated 20‑12‑1993. Thereafter the appellant filed the present appeal on 8‑1‑1994.

2. We heard the arguments of Mr. Abdul Sattar Mughal, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and of the learned AA.‑G. for the official respondents. We also went through necessary documents available on record.

3. The show‑cause notice reproduced hereinabove reveals two charges against the appellant. The first charge is that he is mixed up with criminals. There is no further elaboration of the said charge as to how and in what manner the appellant had links with the criminals. Even the identity of the criminals had not been disclosed. Accordingly we are inclined to agree with the contention the appellant's learned counsel that the charge is not only vague but is also of general nature. Nothing specific has been alleged against the appellant who has denied the above charge, dubbing it as false and fabricated. No detailed enquiry has been held to prove the said charge.

4. As for the second charge, it may suffice to say that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot be held as enough justification for punishing the appellant. The involvement may turn out to be totally false. This is not un?common. Therefore we would be setting a dangerous precedent to prejudge the appellant's defence that his involvement is a counterblast of the case filed against Excise Inspector Azhar‑ul‑Haq and other Excise Staff. The above plea raised by the appellant does not appear to be untrue, as the F.I.Rs. covering the two cases bear consecutive member i.e. one is 67/92 filed against the Excise Inspector and other Excise Staff another is 68/92 filed against the appellant and others. Apart from above, sub‑rule (4) of rule 6 of Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988 requires the competent authority to first determine, on receipt of accused officials explanation where no enquiry was held, whether charges made against the said official had been proved. In the instant case the punishing authority had no other material before him in support of the charges excepting the appellant's reply containing his denial of the charges. In these circumstances the said authority could not possibly hold that the charges were proved against the appellant.

5. In view of the above discussion the impugned order of the appellant's compulsory retirement cannot be upheld. Consequently the appeal is accepted with no order as to costs and the impugned order is set aside. For peculiar reasons we however leave it open for the police authorities to proceed against the appellant afresh in strict compliance of the above rules if there was sufficient reliable evidence to do so. H.B.T./577/Sr.S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????? Appeal accepted