MUHAMMAD AYUB vs THE CHAIRMAN, ELECTRICITY BOARD, WAPDA, PESHAWAR AND ANOTHER

ORDER

1. NASiM HASAN SHAH, J.-The petitioner while posted as a Sub-Divisional Officer, WAPDA (Electricity)

2. Mansehra Sub-Division allegedly accepted, on 17.4-1979, Rs. 2,000 as illegal gratification through Muhammad Maskeen, Line Superintendent of his Sub-Division in order to help the Consumer Muhammad Imran in supplying electricity to his Saw Machine at Balacot, District Mansehra. He was tried by a Special Judge under section 161, P.P.C. And section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 but was found not guilty by him and acquitted. However, departmental proceedings under the WAPDA (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules were there--after initiated against him and after proper charge sheet and due enquiry was awarded on 27-6-1984, the penalty of compulsory retirement from service. The petitioner's departmental appeal having remained unsuccess--ful he filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The said appeal has, however, also been dismissed. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. The main point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner having been exonerated of the charges on which action has been taken by WAPDA, the punishment now imposed upon him violates the guarantee contained in Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.

4. Article 13, to the extent relevant, provides :-- "No person- .

(a) shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once."

5. The important words in the above provision are "the same offence". The word "offence", while sometimes used in various senses, here implies a crime infringing/public as distinguished from mere .Private rights, and is punishable under the criminal law. Indeed this provision is a protection against double punishment and the punishment contemplated under Article 13 is a punishment that has been imposed upon a person as a result of a criminal prosecution. Hence any penalty imposed on a civil servant as a consequence of departmental proceedings. Under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, after the accused officer has been acquitted of a criminal charge, is not barred. What this provision bars, as observed earlier, is al fresh trial and punishment for the same offence and not the infliction of a penalty as a result of departmental proceedings.

6. There is no force in this petition which is accordingly, dismissed hereby.