GHULAM ABBAS vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (CRIME), LAHORE and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a police officer from service following his conviction in a criminal case. The petitioner, an Ex-Sub-Inspector, was dismissed under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, after being convicted under sections 337-A(ii) and 342 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Although the Federal Shariat Court acquitted him of the Zina offence, it maintained his conviction for the other offences. The petitioner argued that a subsequent compromise with the victims, which led to his discharge by the trial court, should vitiate his dismissal from service. The core legal question was whether a subsequent compromise in criminal proceedings nullifies a departmental dismissal order based on a conviction that held the field at the time of the dismissal. The Supreme Court held that since the conviction was upheld at the time of the dismissal and the petitioner failed to produce evidence of the compromise, the dismissal remained valid. The Court affirmed that a subsequent compromise does not automatically wipe out the established misconduct that justified the departmental action.
- Does a subsequent compromise in criminal proceedings automatically nullify a departmental dismissal order based on a conviction that was valid at the time of the dismissal?
- Can criminal and departmental proceedings against a public servant proceed simultaneously?
- Does a conviction maintained by a court constitute sufficient grounds for departmental dismissal even if the conviction is later affected by a compromise?
- Section 10(4), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342(6), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000
ORDER
' SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.--- The petitioner, Ex-Sub-Inspector Police, was proceeded against under Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 on the ground of having been convicted in a case under section 10(4) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced to 23 years' imprisonment and 30 lashes. He submitted a reply. The competent authority, vide order dated 2-9-2002, directed his dismissal from service. He filed an appeal before the Capital City Police Officer, Lahore who noted that the learned Federal Shariat Court had acquitted the petitioner (Appeal No,99-L of 2002 decided on 8-10-2003) from the offence under section 10 Offence. Of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 but had maintained the conviction under sections 337-A(ii) and 342, P.P.C. It was noted that the petitioner was released from the jail on completion of the sentence and the Court had not acquitted him. Accordingly, his appeal was dismissed.
2. The petitioner had approached this Court against the judgment of learned Federal Shariat Court.
According to the learned counsel there has been a compromise between the parties and, therefore, the petition pending before this Court was withdrawn. It is contended that on 11-12-2004 the victims recorded their statements before the learned Additional Session Judge, Lahore on which the petitioner was discharged. This was during pendency of petitioner's appeal before the learned Punjab Service Tribunal and was the mainstay of the petitioner's case. The learned Tribunal noted that criminal and departmental proceedings could simultaneously continue and that conviction of the petitioner under sections 337-A(ii) and 342, P.P.C. Was maintained by the learned Federal Shariat Court. Leave is sought against the said order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as far as conviction of the petitioner under sections 337-A(ii) and 342, P.P.C. Is concerned, the effect of the compromise, according to section 342((6) of the Cr.P.C. Is petitioner's acquittal and since the order of dismissal was based solely on conviction and sentence awarded by the Criminal Court the impugned orders stand vitiated.
4. The submissions have been considered. At the time of passing of the orders by the S.P. And the Capital City Police Officer, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under sections 337-A(ii) and 342, P.P.C. Held the field. According to the averments of this petition (para.3) after the statements of injured were recorded, the accused persons were discharged vide order dated 11-12- 2004. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, the compromise, the order passed thereon by the learned trial Court and the order of this Court permitting withdrawal of the criminal petition have not been placed on the record without which it is not possible to ascertain the terms of the compromise and the effect of the order mentioned in para.3 of this petition. Be that as it may since conviction and sentence of the petitioner under sections 337-A(ii) and 342, P.P.C. Stood upheld by this Court as a result of withdrawal of his criminal petition the subsequent compromise will not have the effect of wiping out the act of the misconduct of the petitioner which stood established.
5. We do not find it a fit case for interference. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave is declined.