SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, HYDERABAD
This matter concerns petitions filed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad, challenging a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal which reinstated police constables dismissed from service. The respondents were dismissed following their involvement in a criminal case under Sections 395 and 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Despite their subsequent acquittal by a competent court of law, departmental authorities upheld the dismissal orders without considering the acquittal judgment. The core legal question was whether the departmental authorities were justified in maintaining the dismissal of the respondents despite their acquittal in the criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Tribunal correctly reinstated the respondents. The Court reasoned that the authorities failed to properly consider the legal and factual implications of the acquittal, noting that no other charges existed against the respondents. The judgment affirms the principle that departmental authorities must duly consider the impact of an acquittal by a court of competent jurisdiction when reviewing disciplinary actions based on the same criminal allegations, particularly when no independent departmental misconduct is established.
- Is a departmental authority required to consider an acquittal order from a criminal court when reviewing the dismissal of a civil servant?
- Can a dismissal from service be sustained solely on criminal charges when the employee has been acquitted of those charges by a court of competent jurisdiction?
- Does the failure of departmental authorities to consider an acquittal judgment render the dismissal order legally flawed?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 396, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---By this consolidated judgment we intend to dispose of the above mentioned petitions, which are directed against a common judgment, dated 12-6-2001 of the Sindh Service Tribunal, at Karachi, passed in Appeals Nos. 99 and 100 of 1999.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners who were constables and posted at Police Station Latifabad "A" Section, Hyderabad, were served with show-cause .Notice dated 23-10-1994, separately, by the S.S.P. Hyderabad, on the allegations that they were involved and arrested in Criminal Case No, 121 of 1994 under sections 395 kid 396, P.P.C. The respondents submitted their replies but vide two separate orders dated 6-11-1994 they were dismissed from service by S.S.P.
Hyderabad. Their departmental appeals to D.I.G. Police were rejected on 9-61997 and 25-7-1998, respectively. Also, their review applications were turned down by the I.G. Police, Sindh vide orders dated 10-2-1999 and 10-3-1999.
3. Thereafter, the respondents filed appeals before the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi, which were accepted vide impugned judgment dated 12-6-2001 . Hence, these petitions by the Department.
4. Mr. Suleman Habibullah, learned Additional Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of the petitioners inter alia, contended that impugned judgment is against law and facts and is not maintainable and that before the Tribunal, Provincial Government of Sindh was not impleaded as a party.
5. We have considered the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate-General and minutely gone through the material available on record. Admittedly, the respondents were dismissed from service by the S.S.P. Hyderabad on the allegations that they were involved and arrested in Criminal Case No,121 of 1994 registered under sections 395/396, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Latifabad "A" Section. Their departmental appeals were dismissed by the higher forums. Subsequently, the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 30-4-1998, acquitted the respondents holding that the case against them was not proved. The respondents produced a certified copy of the aforesaid judgment before the D . I .G. Hyderabad as well as the I.G. Police Sindh, but the same was not considered by them. In this context it would be advantageous to reproduce here the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:-- "The learned A.A.-G. Very candidly concedes that the Authority concerned while passing the impugned order failed to consider the legal and factual aspects of the acquittal of the appellants from the criminal case. He signifies his no objections if the appeals allowed to the extent of reinstatement of appellants in service subject to the relinquishment of back-benefits."
6. The higher police authorities did not give weight to the acquittal order of the respondents passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction, inasmuch as there was no -other charge or show-cause notice against the respondents. Keeping in view the circumstances, the Tribunal had considered the case in its proper perspective. The impugned judgment is well-reasoned and in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court.
7. For the foregoing reasons, these petitions are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.