AMIR ABDULLAH Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

ORDER

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑ The petitioner was a foot‑constable in the establishment of Superintendent of Police, Mianwali. He was sent on deputation to the Special Branch at Lahore. On 20‑8‑1978 a team including a captain from the Army and a Magistrate raided the L.M.C. Quarters at Lahore. A number of constables, including the petitioner, together with three other persons, were found gambling. The raiding party apprehended the petitioner together with the others and recovered the stake money of Rs. 1,295 alongwith playing cards and dices. A case under the Gambling Ordinance was registered against them. The petitioner and his companions were challaned. Flowever, they were acquitted by a Magistrate under section 249‑A, Criminal Procedure Code without recording any evidence with the finding that the charge against them was groundless and not likely to succeed but without giving reason in support thereof.

2. The petitioner was sent back to his parent establishment. The Superintendent of Police, Mianwali, gave him a show‑cause notice. He did not dispute his presence in the room in question at the time of the raid but stated that at the relevant time he was merely chatting with another constable. His explanation was found unsatisfactory and he was dismissed from service. His appeal before the Deputy Inspector‑General and revision before the Inspector -General of Police remained unsuccessful. He then filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal. This too failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.

3. In support of this petition it was first contended that as the petitioner had. been acquitted of the criminal charge it was not open to the departmental authorities to take disciplinary action against him. This argument is without any merit. The objects of prosecution on a criminal charge and departmental disciplinary proceedings are entirely different; one relates to the enforcement of the criminal liability and the other is concerned with the service discipline. Acquittal on a criminal charge has no bearing on the disciplinary proceedings (See Deputy inspector‑General of Police, Lahore and others v. Anis‑ur‑Rehman Khan; PLD1985SC134.

4. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner relates to interpretation of rule 11, Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. This rule relates to procedure of inquiry against officers lent to another Government or Authority. This rule is inapplicable in the case of the petitioner as the entire disciplinary proceedings were taken against him by his parent establishment.

5. No other point has been raised. This petition is dismissed as without any merit.

M.I./A‑317/S Petition dismissed.