MUHAMMAD TUFAIL Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COLLECTOR

1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J. ‑‑The petitioner, formerly a Patwari was subjected to proceedings under the Anti‑Corruption laws initiated by a Magisterial raid, leading to recovery of Rs. 400 as illegal gratification. He was not only prosecuted criminally but also departmentally, resulting in his dismissal by the competent authority, and acquittal by the criminal Court. After exhausting the departmental remedies, he approached the Punjab Service Tribunal but his appeal was rejected. The Tribunal held that there was sufficient material to justify the award of punishment of dismissal under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules.

2. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azim, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that being a corruption case, the summary procedure prescribed under sub‑rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Efficiency & Disciplinary Rules, should not have been invoked. Instead a detailed inquiry should have been held into his conduct. He has also contended that the acquittal from the criminal Court should have entitled the petitioner to remain in service. Finally, it has been contended that he could not be punished or prosecuted in two forums on the same allegation.

3. 'The departmental proceedings took place in the background of the Magisterial raid and the recovery of Rs. 400 from the petitioner. That could justify the shorter procedure. The rules provide for it. The circumstances justified it.

4. As regards the sufficiency of the material not only the departmental authorities have examined it, the Service Tribunal has also analytically examined it. There is no apparent infirmity in the appraisal of the material. The departmental proceedings concluded before the competent authority i.e. the Collector on 31‑7‑1980. The criminal trial resulting m acquittal concluded on 19‑1‑1982. Even if the reasoning of double jeopardy be allowed, it is not the first order which gets tainted but the second. We want also to make it clear that it is ? not a case of double jeopardy because the two proceedings are quite different in substance and result. There is no question of law to be examined further. Leave ? to appeal is therefore, refused.

5. M.Y.H./M‑580/5 ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? Petition dismissed.