ZILLE HASNAIN vs ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAWALPINDI and others
This petition arose from the dismissal of the petitioner from police service following disciplinary proceedings initiated after an FIR was registered against him under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for alleged dacoity. After his departmental appeal and subsequent appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal were dismissed, the petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, contending that his acquittal in the criminal trial entitled him to reinstatement. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, holding that criminal prosecution and departmental disciplinary proceedings serve distinct purposes; the former addresses criminal liability while the latter enforces service discipline. Consequently, an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically vitiate or control the outcome of disciplinary proceedings. The Court observed that all procedural formalities under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 had been fully complied with, proper hearing had been afforded, and the department's subjective assessment regarding the petitioner's retention in service warranted no interference.
- Does an acquittal in a criminal case automatically entitle a civil servant to reinstatement or affect the validity of departmental disciplinary proceedings?
- Can a departmental inquiry proceed and impose disciplinary punishment based on facts underlying a criminal charge?
- Can the subjective assessment of a department regarding an employee's fitness for retention in service be interfered with where procedural rules were complied with?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975
ORDER
' JAVED IQBAL, J---Pursuant to registration of a criminal case vide F.I.R. No, 156 dated 22-3-1995 under section 392 P.P.C. At Police Station R.A. Bazar, Rawalpindi for alleged commission of decoity in the house of one Manzoor Ahmad on gun point disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner which culminated into dismissal of his service. After exhausting the departmental remedies the petitioner approached the learned Punjab Service Tribunal by means of appeal which has been dismissed, hence this petition.
2. We have heard Mr. Tanvir Ahmed, learned A.O.R. On behalf of petitioner at length. The main thrust of the argument is that after acquittal in criminal case the petitioner should have been reinstated in service. It is well-settled by now that "objects of prosecution on criminal charge and departmental proceedings are entirely different; one relates to the enforcement of criminal liability and the other is concerned with service discipline. Acquittal on criminal charge had no bearing on disciplinary proceedings". Arnir Abdullah v. Superintendent of Police (1989 SCMR 333), Deputy Inspector General of Police v. Anis-urRehman Khan (PLD 1985 SC 134), Muhammad Nazir v.
Superintendent of Police (1990 SCMR 1556), Nawaz Khan v. Federal Government (1996 SCMR 315).
Arif Ghafoor v. Managing Director (PLD'2002 SC 13). The acquittal of petitioner in criminal case would have no substantial bearing on the initiation of disciplinary action and its result. There is no denying the fact that a very serious charge of decoity on gun point has been levelled against the petitioner which was supported by the complainant and prosecution witnesses before the Inquiry Officer. The necessary -formalities as envisaged under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline)
Rules, 1975 have been complied with in letter and spirit by affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the highest level. It is worth mentioning that the performance of the petitioner was not assessed as "satisfactory" and the subjective assessment of the department regarding his eligibility qua retention of the petitioner in service cannot be questioned. No injustice has been done to petitioner. The conclusion as arrived at by learned Service Tribunal being well based does not warrant any interference and besides that no question of law of public importance is involved in the matter on the basis whereof leave to appeal could be granted.
3. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and leave refused.