THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, LAHORE RANGE vs ANTS UR
This matter concerns two civil petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Lahore Range, challenging the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The respondents, an Inspector and an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, were dismissed from service for grave misconduct. The Tribunal accepted their appeals, reasoning that because the respondents had been acquitted of the same charges by a Criminal Court, the departmental authorities lacked a basis for dismissal and should have awaited the criminal verdict before initiating disciplinary action. The petitioner contends that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not bar departmental proceedings and that the Tribunal's view incorrectly restricts departmental action solely to cases where a government servant is convicted by a Criminal Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the case raises a substantial question of law of public importance regarding the relationship between criminal acquittal and departmental disciplinary proceedings. The Court ordered the appeals to be prepared for hearing, while maintaining the interim stay order previously in place.
- Does an acquittal by a Criminal Court automatically bar departmental proceedings against a government servant on the same charges?
- Are departmental authorities legally required to await the outcome of criminal proceedings before initiating disciplinary action for misconduct?
- Is departmental action against a government servant restricted only to instances where the servant has been convicted by a Criminal Court?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J. This order will govern Civil Petition No. 942/81. And Civil Petition No. 958 of 1981.
2. Anis-ur-Rehman (Respondent in C. P. No. 942/81) and Muhammad Ashraf (Respondent in C. P. No. 958/81), who were Serving respectively as Inspector of Police and Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, were dismissed from service on the ground of grave misconduct. They filed appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal), which were accepted. Hence these petitions for leave to appeal.
3. The Tribunal in accepting the appeals filed by the respondents was mainly influenced by the fact that the said respondents were tried before a Criminal Court on the same charges on which they have been dismissed, but the Criminal Court however, had exonerated them of the said charges and acquitt--ed them. Consequently, there was no basis left for holding the respondents to be guilty. In fact, the department authorities should have waited for the judgment of the Criminal Court before rushing to take action against the respondents.
4. Mr. Tanvir Ahmad, learned Assistant Advocate-General. Argued that the acquittal in a Criminal Court is no bar to the maintainability of departmental proceedings and the view of the Tribunal that the verdict of the Criminal Court should have been awaited and the findings recorded by it which destroy the basis of the action taken against the respondents, are not in accordance with law. The result of such view would be that the departmental authorities would be restricted to take departmental action only in the case where Government servant is convicted by the Criminal Court which is not a correct view of the law.
5. The question inter alia does raise a substantial question of law of public importance. Leave is, accordingly, granted.
6. The appeals to be made ready on the present record with leave to the parties to add further documents, if any.
7. The interim stay to continue but the appeals to be made ready for bearing within six months.
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