MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs THE INSPECTORGENERAL OF POLICE and 2 others
The petitioner, an ex-Constable dismissed from service following summary proceedings for dereliction of duty, sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the dismissal of his appeal by the Service Tribunal. The core legal question concerned whether summary proceedings and the omission of a formal inquiry vitiated the dismissal when facts were controverted, and whether a subsequent acquittal in a criminal case based on similar facts warranted setting aside the departmental dismissal. The Supreme Court held that where a public servant is apprehended pari delicto by a superior, shorter inquiry procedures are legally permissible under established precedent, and that an acquittal in a criminal trial does not invalidate departmental proceedings when the departmental charges encompass broader and more serious derelictions not forming the subject-matter of the criminal trial. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that summary departmental inquiries are justified under appropriate factual circumstances and remain distinct from criminal prosecutions.
- Whether summary departmental proceedings can be adopted instead of a formal inquiry when a public servant is apprehended in the act of committing a dereliction of duty?
- Does an acquittal in a criminal case automatically invalidate a departmental dismissal based on similar facts?
- Can broader charges in departmental proceedings prevent an acquittal under criminal law from reacting in favour of the accused employee?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, an ex-Constable dismissed from service, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the dismissal of his appeal in limine by the Service Tribunal on 26-7-1987.
2. The petitioner was apprehended by his superior while in the act of committing a dereliction of duty and the shorter procedure of show-cause notice and of hearing, was afforded to him and after considering his defence, he was dismissed from service. He challenged the dismissal by a departmental appeal and did not succeed. He then approached the Service Tribunal by filing an appeal which was also dismissed in limine.
3. Mian Abdur Rashid, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the facts alleged against the petitioner were controverted, it was necessary that a formal inquiry should have been held into the charges and the summary proceedings should not have been adopted in the matter. Besides, according to the learned counsel, a criminal case was also registered on the same facts and that case had ended into his acquittal. Such an acquittal made it necessary that his dismissal from service which was based on more or less the same facts should have been set aside.
4. We have gone through the charges and find that they covered derelictions greater than that made the basis of the criminal charge. He was apprehended pari delicto by his superior. In this background the shorter procedure of his inquiry could be resorted to, as held by this Court in the case of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore and others v. Anis-ur-Rehman Khan PLD 1985 SC 134.
5. The charges against him included more serious charge of assisting, in contravention of law, an under-trial prisoner kept in judicial custody which was not the subject-matter of criminal trial. His acquittal, therefore, under the Prohibition Law does not react in his favour so far as the departmental proceedings are concerned. No case is made out for leave to appeal which is refused.