Muhammad Nawaz Khan vs Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore
This petition was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against a major penalty of reduction in rank from Head Constable to Constable. The penalty was imposed following departmental inquiry proceedings under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, on allegations of bribery. The petitioner contended that the penalty was unsustainable following his acquittal/discharge in a related criminal case. The Supreme Court considered whether a civil servant is automatically exonerated from departmental proceedings upon acquittal in a criminal case. The Court held that departmental proceedings and criminal trials operate under different standards of proof and procedures. A civil servant cannot escape departmental consequences solely due to an acquittal or discharge on a criminal charge, as the department may still find their retention in service inexpedient. Finding no substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution, the Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
- Does the acquittal or discharge of a civil servant in a criminal case automatically invalidate or bar departmental disciplinary proceedings on the same allegations?
- What is the standard of proof and procedural difference between departmental inquiry proceedings and a criminal trial for a civil servant?
- Can a department independently assess the suitability of a civil servant to remain in service despite their exoneration in a criminal court?
- Punjab Police (E&D) Rules 1975
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J. Through the instant petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment dated 20.03.2019 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore ("Tribunal") whereby his appeal was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice leveling allegation of bribe. The departmental proceedings were initiated against him. On conclusion of inquiry, major penalty of reduction in rank from Head Constable to Constable was imposed upon the petitioner. His appeal against the said penalty was dismissed on 28.08.2017 and so also his appeal before the learned Tribunal through the impugned judgment.
3. It is evident from the impugned judgment that after a show cause notice and proper regular inquiry under the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975, the petitioner was imposed major penalty of reduction in the rank from Head Constable to Constable. After some passage of time, the petitioner was promoted to Head Constable on 20.12.2017. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order whereby major penalty was imposed upon the petitioner is not sustainable after the acquittal of the petitioner in FIR No. 10 dated 13.06.2015, registered at Police Station, AC District Mianwali.
4. We have gone through the order dated 03.05.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, Sargodha Camp at Mianwali, which shows that the Investigating Officer submitted a report under section 173, Cr.P.C. by placing the names of the accused persons in the column No. 2 of the report. It also transpires from the same order that the complainant had patched up the matter with the accused persons and both the accused persons were found innocent during the investigation. Hence, charge, was not framed and the petitioner was discharged.
5. It is well settled exposition of law that a civil servant cannot escape departmental proceedings or consequences thereof on account of his acquittal/exoneration on a criminal charge. While facing expulsive proceedings on departmental side on account of his indictment on criminal charge, he may not save his job in the event of acquittal as the department may still have reasons to conscionably consider his stay in the service as inexpedient. The department can assess the suitability of a civil servant, confronted with a charge through a fact finding method, which somewhat inquisitorial in nature, but without the heavier procedural riders otherwise required in criminal jurisdiction to eliminate any potential risk of error. Ref: Dr. Sohail Hassan Khan and others v. Director General (Research), Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Punjab, Lahore and others (2020 SCMR 1708) and District Police Officer, Mianwali and 2 others v. Amir Abdul Majid (2021 SCMR 420). Even otherwise, no substantial question of law of public importance in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 in involved in the matter. The petition is thus dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.