1985 P L C (C. S.) 1011
[Federal Service Tribunal]
Before Muhammad Irshad Khan and A. Rahman Khan Members
HUMAYUN KHAN
versus
CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER, AIR PORT SECURITY, PESHAWAR AND ANOTHER
Appeal No. 147 (P) of 1982, heard on 16th April, 1985.
Qazi M. Anwar for Appellant.
Muhammad Amir Akbar Khan, State Counsel for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 16th April, 1985.
JUDGMENT
A. RAHMAN KHAN (MEMBER). ‑This is the appeal by ex‑US‑1152, A.S.I., Humayun Khan of Airport Security Force, Peshawar against his dismissal from service vide the impugned Order No. 17‑2/82/ Admn., dated 17th March, 1982. The appellant appealed depart mentally against his dismissal to the Force Commander, Airport Security Officer but his appeal was rejected vide No. 19‑6/78/Admn‑IA, dated 5th August, 1982.
2. The appellant was posted as A. S. I. in the Airport Security Force on 2nd October, 1980 at Peshawar Airport. His services were governed by the Airport Security Force Act, 1975.
3. On 18th November, 1981, P. I. A. Flight P. K. 3126 was expected to land at 1615 hours at Peshawar Airport carrying Halls on board. A sizeable crowd of people had gathered in the car park area of the Airport to receive the Hajis which is a very normal sight on such occasions. The Airport Security Staff on duty in that area included the following personnel among others
ex‑US 1152 A. S. I. Humayun Khan.
Guard‑I Munir Khan.
Guard‑II Parvez Khan.
Guard‑I Abdul Qadoos.
Guard‑I Abdul Qayyum.
At about 1630 hours when the passengers were coming out of the arrival lounge of the Airport, most of the eager relatives of the passengers who had come to receive Hajis were standing on the vantage points and were trying to recognise the in‑coming relatives. Lt. Muhammad Asghar Khan, who was in civilian clothes had also come to Airport to receive his mother who was returning from Haj by the same flight. Guard‑I Abdul Qadoos, Guard‑I Abdul Qayyum and Guard‑II Parvez Khan were on duty at the Concourse Hall. The appellant, who was performing the general duty came at the Concourse Hall to assist the staff to control the people who had gathered to receive the Hajis. Like other visitors, Lt. Muhammad Asghar Khan was standing on one of the flower‑beds constructed on either side of the Verandah in front of the Concourse Hall gate. They were all reaching over‑heads to have a glance of their incoming passengers. At about 1630 hours, Guard‑I Abdul Qadoos approached Lt. Muhammad Asghar Khan and pushed him down. Lt. Muhammad Asghar Khan objected to this and asked the guard not to push him down and that he would come down voluntarily. Guard Abdul Qayyum, however, did not listen to him but insisted to pull him down and push him back and the altercation started between the parties. At that Lt. Muhammad Asghar Khan disclosed his identity. A. S. I. Humayun Khan, who was pre4ent in the area came hurriedly towards the scene of the occurrence. The appel lant without enquiring into the circumstances of the altercation struck the Army Officer with his stick that he was carrying in his hand. This aggravated the situation seriously and scuffle started between the parties. The A. S. F. staff which included the appellant and the guards mentioned above beat up Lt. Muhammad Asghar Khan with stick and fists and physi cally dragged him to the control room of the A. S. F. Airport. The Coy -Commander, A. S. O. Sher Muhammad, who was on duty in the control room was reported the matter.
4. The respondent‑department conducted the necessary enquiries and finally dealt with the appellant and other accused departmentally strictly in accordance with the instructions laid down vide Headquarters Airport Security Force No. 18/1/78/Adorn‑IA, dated 8th January, 1980, which, in fact, is a clarification on the subject of procedure for holding departmental proceedings under A. S. F. Act, 1975 and A.S.F. (Discipline) Rules, 1977.
S. The learned counsel for the appellant contended firstly that the procedure adopted by the respondent‑department to enquire into the incident was not according to the Airport Security Act, 1975. The record presented by the respondent‑department speaks quite otherwise. The steps mentioned in the relevant sections of the S.R.O. 1027 (1)/77 of 29th October, 1977 framed under Airport Security Act, 1975 were strictly followed.
6. We have examined the relevant record of the respondent‑department and we are fully satisfied that they have followed the laid down procedure meticulously. In fact the respondent‑department has over ensured the adherence of the rules of procedure by making two additional officers to attend the proceedings of the Summary Court vide their letter No. 17‑2/82/Adorn., dated 14th March, 1982. Even our careful scrutiny of the proceedings has not yielded any omission in the procedure adopted to deal with the appellant in this case. We are satisfied on this count. Secondly, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that it was only the appellant who was made the scape‑goat in this case and other per sonnel involved in the scuffle with the Army Officer were let off with rather minor punishments. The fact of the case is that it was the appellant being the senior‑most on duty who created a very serious situa tion by striking the Army Officer first. The appellant instead of controlling the minor altercation between the guards and the Army Officer and other civilians was entirely responsible for creating the ugly incident. The involvement of the other junior A. S. F. personnel mentioned above which turned into use of physical force was mainly due to the appellant’s rash action of hitting first. The junior A.S.F. personnel actually joined in to beat up the Army Officer to help the appellant. Their guilt, therefore, in our opinion, was caused on the instigation of the appellant. We, there fore, entirely agree with the respondent‑department the way they have handled the situation.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that it was because of the imposition of the Martial Law in the country that the appellant was punished so severely. The learned Counsel for the appel lant further argued that it was not such a serious case in which the appellant should have been dismissed under the normal civil law. We, however, disagree with the contention and consider that this case was a fit case for trial by Military Court because under no circumstances the appel lant was empowered to hit any civilian visitor at the Airport much less an officer of the Armed Forces who had disclosed his identity and had him dragged later on by the A. S. F. Guards in the face of the entire civilian crowd to the A. S. F. control room. In this regard the evidence even by the two independent witnesses i. e. Haji Mian Zafeer Ullah son of Mian Mushrif, Vill, Dag Ismail Khan, Tehsil Nowshera, District Peshawar and No. 67 Mushraf Shah son of Syed Samar Shah, Constable, Special Branch Police, Peshawar, is very material and relevant. The evidence given by these two independent witnesses has established the guilt of the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. The appellant grossly exceeded the authority vested in him by the A. S. F. Act and the instructions of the Force Commander to control the visitors. The appellant was not authori sed to carry any stick in his hand illegally on which he had been checked by his Coy Commander on more than one occasion. All this evidence is irrefutable and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is, therefore, repelled unequivocally. The respondent‑department has in fact done well to have played the incident on low key. We appre ciate their efforts. To contend anything otherwise in this regard, to say the least, is playing with the gallery.
8. In view of the above, we uphold the order of dismissal of these appellant and order accordingly.
9, No order as to costs.
A. H.
Appeal dismissed.
