SUPERINTENDENT OP POLICE, D.I. KHAN and others vs IHSANULLAH

ORDER

' ABDUL HAWED DOGAR, J.--- This petition is directed against judgment, dated 10-5-2005 passed by learned N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, camp at D.I. Khan whereby Appeal No,180 of 2004 filed by respondent was allowed and he was reinstated into service without back-benefits.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of instant petition are that respondent was dismissed from service on the allegation that on 12-7-2001 he was found in possession of 225 grams of Charas. Case was registered against him in whom he was arrested and sent up to face the trial. According to learned counsel for the respondent he made representation to the competent authority but did avail the remedy of filing appeal before the learned Tribunal challenging his dismissal. According to him after his acquittal from the criminal case which took place on 9-10-2003 he filed instant appeal before Tribunal on 18-3-2004 mainly on the ground that he was acquitted from criminal charges as such be reinstated in service. The appeal before the Tribunal was filed belatedly from date of his dismissal and after five months from the date of his acquittal from the criminal charges. This being so, respondent has lost his right and cannot agitate for reinstatement. By now it is the settled principle of law that acquittal of civil servant from criminal charges would have absolutely no bearing on the merits of the case as the disciplinary proceedings are to be initiated according to service rules independently. Reliance can be made to the cases of Executive Engineer and others v.

Zahid Sharif 2005 SCM R 824 wherein it has been held that acquittal of civil servant from. Court would not impose any bar for initiation of disciplinary proceedings as his acquittal would have no bearing on disciplinary proceedings at all. In case of Sarni Ullah v. Inspector-General of Police and others 2006 SCM R 554 it has been held that acquittal of petitioner from criminal case would have absolutely no bearing on the merits of the case and in the case of N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology v. Syed Ashfaq Hussain Shah 2006 SCM R 453 it has been held that departmental representation of civil servant was barred by limitation and on the basis of such representation Service Tribunal could not reinstate him in service.

3. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove and the case-law referred (supra) the impugned judgment reinstating the respondent in service after acquittal from the criminal charge is not sustainable in law hence the same is set aside. The petition is converted into appeal and allowed. The order of dismissal from service of respondent is maintained.