DIRECTOR-GENERAL, INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, ISLAMABAD vs MUHAMMAD JAVED
This civil appeal was filed by the Director-General, Intelligence Bureau, challenging a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the dismissal of the respondent, Muhammad Javed, from service. The respondent had been dismissed under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000, primarily due to unauthorized absence and involvement in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether the respondent's acquittal following a compromise in a criminal case could be equated to a conviction justifying dismissal, and whether the period of absence, already regularized as extraordinary leave by the competent authority, could still serve as grounds for disciplinary action. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal correctly reinstated the respondent. The Court reasoned that since the competent authority had already treated the respondent's absence as extraordinary leave, that ground was no longer available for disciplinary punishment. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a lawful compromise and subsequent acquittal in a criminal case cannot be treated as a conviction or a valid ground for disqualification from public service.
- Can a period of absence previously regularized as extraordinary leave by a competent authority be used as a ground for disciplinary dismissal?
- Does a lawful compromise and subsequent acquittal in a criminal case constitute a conviction for the purposes of service disqualification?
- Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000
' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---By leave of the court, this civil appeal, at the instance of Director General, Intelligence Bureau, Islamabad, is directed against the judgment dated 30-3-2010, in Appeal No,56(K)(CS) of 2008, passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi (in short the Tribunal), whereby the said appeal, preferred by respondent Muhammad Javed against his dismissal from service under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000, vide order dated 12-3- 2008, after no response of his departmental appeal dated 27-3-2008, was allowed, consequently order dated 12-3-2008 was set aside and his reinstatement in service was ordered, treating the intervening period of his absence as leave of the kind due.
2. Mr. Ashiq Raza, learned Deputy Attorney-General for the appellant, after brief narration of relevant facts, contended that respondent was involved in a murder case arising out of F.I.R. No,76 of 2004, Police Station Gharibabad Cantt. Hyderabad, which was subsequently compromised upon payment of diyat amount to the opposite party, therefore, it shall be equated as his conviction in the said crime, but the Tribunal ignoring this material aspect of the case, has ordered his reinstatement in service. He, however, did not dispute that the period of his absence from duty with effect from 3-9-2004 to 6-3-2005, which basically formed basis of such departmental action, was treated by the competent authority as extraordinary leave.
3. In reply, Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent contended that the Tribunal, in its impugned judgment, has aptly discussed the fact of compromise in the criminal case between the respondent and the opposite party, and rightly held that such compromise and consequent acquittal of the respondent in the said 'criminal case cannot be labeled as his conviction so as to entail consequences of his disqualification from service.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us by the parties' counsel and also perused the material placed on record, which reveals that the period of absence of the respondent was treated by the competent authority as extraordinary leave, therefore, the ground of his illegal absence was no more available for awarding any punishment to him. Moreover, admittedly the offence arising out of F.I.R. No, 74 of 2006, Police Station Gharibabad, Cantt. Hyderabad was lawfully compromised and disposed of, whereby the respondent was acquitted. This being the position, a rightly urged by Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent, such acquittal of respondent cannot be taken as his disqualification, coming in the way of his reinstatement in service.
5. In view of the above, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal calls for no interference. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- KHALIL AZIZ vs DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, RAJANPUR and another 2018 PLJ Tr.C. (Service) 129
- Khalil Aziz vs The District Coordination Officer, Rajanpur and another 2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 209