Pakistan Case Law
2007 SCMR 1365

MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, SAHIWAL and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2007 SCMR 1365
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,1219-L of 2005
Date2006-07-12
Judge(s)Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Syed Jamshed Ali
Authored byFaqir Muhammad Khokhar
ResultPetition allowed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by an individual who was previously arrested and detained in a criminal case. Following his subsequent acquittal on September 21, 2004, the petitioner challenged his dismissal or disciplinary action related to his employment, arguing that his absence from duty was not wilful but rather a direct consequence of his incarceration in the criminal case. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an employee's absence from duty, caused by detention in a criminal case from which they were later acquitted, constitutes wilful absence justifying disciplinary action. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the petitioner's acquittal effectively negated the charge of wilful absence from duty. The Court directed that the appeal be fixed for final hearing within six months, allowing the parties to submit additional documents. The principle established is that an employee's absence from duty due to judicial custody in a criminal case, followed by an acquittal, requires judicial scrutiny to determine if such absence qualifies as 'wilful' under service law.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does an acquittal in a criminal case negate the charge of wilful absence from duty for an employee who was in judicial custody?
  • Can an employee be dismissed for wilful absence if the absence was caused by detention in a criminal case?
service lawwilful absencecriminal acquittalleave to appealdisciplinary actionjudicial custody

ORDER

' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The learned counsel submitted, inter alia, that the petitioner was arrested in a criminal case and was sent to judicial lock-up. Subsequently, he was acquitted from the criminal case on 21-9-2004. Therefore, there was no question of his wilful absence from duty.

2. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the above and the other submissions of the learned counsel. Since short points of law are involved, office is directed to fix the appeal for final hearing, on its present record, within a period of six months. However, the parties shall be at liberty to file additional documents with the permission of the Court.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.