MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD and another
This petition arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal modifying a departmental penalty imposed on the petitioner, a Foodgrain Inspector, for a shortage of wheat. The petitioner was removed from service and ordered to pay recovery for the loss, but the Tribunal set aside the removal, ordered reinstatement, and reduced the recovery amount based on joint responsibility and deposits made by a co-accused. The core legal question was whether police discharge in a criminal case precludes departmental disciplinary proceedings and whether the Tribunal's factual findings warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings are mutually exclusive and can proceed independently, and the police's opinion on guilt does not bind departmental authorities. The Court laid down the principle that the findings of fact concurrently recorded by departmental authorities and the Tribunal based on record do not warrant interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution when no substantial question of law of public importance is involved, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
- Whether the discharge of a civil servant by the police in a criminal case precludes departmental disciplinary proceedings against him?
- Is the opinion of the police regarding the guilt or innocence of an accused binding on departmental authorities for taking action under the rules?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal can be interfered with in the absence of a substantial question of law of public importance?
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- This petition is directed against judgment, dated 14-11-2001 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No,742 of 1999.
2. The petitioner and one Malik Muhammad Rafi, Foodgrain Inspectors, were proceeded against for the shortage of 354 M.Tons of wheat at PR Centre, Layyah during the year 1993. A Criminal Case F.I.R. No,17 of 1994 under section 471/409/467/468, P.P.C. And under section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was also registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption, Layyah. As a result of investigation, the police came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not involved in the criminal case. However, the Inquiry Officer, after holding necessary inquiry, found the petitioner and Malik Muhammad Rafi to be guilty of the charge. The respondent No,1, by order, dated 4-12-1997, awarded major penalty of removal of the petitioner from service and recovery of pecuniary loss of Rs,14,51,378.76 being the cost of 354 M.Tons of wheat. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal which was dismissed by the respondent No,2, by order, dated 27-2-1999. The Service Appeal No,742 of 1999 of the petitioner was also disposed of by the Tribunal, by impugned judgment, dated 14-11- 2001, whereby the penalty of removal from service was set aside and the penalty of recovery of Rs,14,51,378.76 was reduced to that of Rs,6,44,978.76. The Tribunal directed the reinstatement of the petitioner in service by treating intervening period as extraordinary leave without pay.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was not responsible for any shortfall in the stock of wheat which was detected by the department after his transfer to another centre. The Inquiry Officer could not rely on the statement of the co-accused while the criminal case was pending before the Anti-Corruption Court. The petitioner was discriminated against as the co-accused Malik Muhammad Rafi was let off without any cogent reason. During the police investigation, it was found that the loss in the wheat stock had been caused by Ghulam Nazak Qureshi, A.F.C. Muhammad Arshad Qureshi and Malik Muhammad Rafi, Foodgrain Inspectors. The learned counsel lastly submitted that the findings of the Tribunal were not warranted by law In the absence of any incriminating evidence of negligence or involvement of the petitioner in the shortfall of the wheat stock.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. We find that the Inquiry Officer did not accept the plea of the petitioner that he was absolved of any responsibility after handing over the charge of Malik Muhammad Rafi. It was observed by the Inquiry Officer as well as by the Tribunal that actual weighment of wheat was not made at the time of handing over/taking over the charge respectively by the petitioner and co-accused Malik Muhammad Rafi. The Tribunal also found that the petitioner and Malik Muhammad Rafi were jointly responsible for the loss. Malik Muhammad Rafi had already deposited Rs,8,06,400 in Government treasury. Therefore, the Tribunal reduced the recovery of Rs,14,51,378.76 to the tune of Rs,6,44,978.76 in the case of the petitioner. The findings of fact have been recorded by the departmental authorities as also by the Tribunal on the basis of material on record.
5. The discharge of the petitioner by the police in a criminal case would not preclude the disciplinary proceedings against him. The ipse dixit of police regarding guilt or otherwise of an accused is not binding on the departmental authorities for taking action against a delinquent, civil servant under the rules. In the case of Arif Ghafoor v. Managing Director, H.M.C. Taxila and others PLD 2002 SC 13, authored by one of us (Javed Iqbal, J.), it was laid down that the criminal prosecution and the departmental proceedings were mutually exclusive which could be taken simultaneously and independently. Also see the cases of Deputy Inspector-General of Police v.
Anis-ur-Rehman Khan PLD 1985 SC 134, Muhammad Ayub v. The Chairman, Electricity Board, WAPDA, Peshawar PLD 1987 SC 195, Muhammad Tufail v. Assistant Commissioner/Collector 1989 SCM R 316, Amir Abdullah v. Superintendent of Police and others 1989 SCM R 333, Muhammad Nazir v. The Superintendent of Police, Toba Tek Singh and others 1990 SCM R 1556, Talib Hussain v. Anar Gul Khan and others 1993 SCM R 2177, Muhammad Izharul Ahsan Qureshi v. Messrs P.I.A.C. 1994 SCM R 1608, Mir Nawaz Khan v. Federal Government through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others 1996 SCM R 315.
6. A somewhat lenient view has already been taken by the Tribunal in the case of the petitioner.
This petition does not involve any substantial luestion of law of public importance as envisaged by clause (3) of Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This is not a'fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.