MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and another
The petitioner, an ex-Constable of the Punjab Police, challenged his dismissal from service following disciplinary proceedings. He had been absent from duty for fifteen months and was subsequently prosecuted for forgery and cheating, leading to an initial conviction by a Special Judge, which was later set aside by the High Court on appeal, granting him the benefit of doubt. The petitioner argued that the Deputy Inspector General (D.I.-G.) dismissed his departmental appeal based on the erroneous assumption that his criminal conviction still stood. The Supreme Court examined the findings of the Service Tribunal, which had upheld the dismissal despite the acquittal. The Court held that the acquittal by the High Court, based on the benefit of doubt, did not automatically exonerate the petitioner from departmental misconduct. Furthermore, the evidence indicated the petitioner had fabricated documents to cover his unauthorized absence. The Court affirmed that the police force requires strict discipline, and an officer who wanders without reporting for duty is unfit for retention, regardless of the outcome of criminal proceedings.
- Does an acquittal in criminal proceedings based on the benefit of doubt automatically invalidate a departmental dismissal order?
- Can a departmental authority dismiss an employee for misconduct even if the employee has been acquitted of related criminal charges?
- Is an order of a departmental appellate authority liable to be set aside if it relies on a criminal conviction that was subsequently overturned?
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioner is an ex-Constable of the Punjab Police. He was a member of the Traffic Staff Kotwali, Lahore and was transferred to District Police Lines on 30-4-1977 but he neither reported to the Police Lines as ordered nor applied for leave or permission not to join his new station of posting viz. The District Police Lines. However, after wandering about for more than 15 months he reported for duty at the Police Lines on 18-8-1978. In order to cover this delay in joining he allegedly prepared a forged and fabricated copy of daily (diary report No,16 dated 16-8-1978) showing his departure from Kotwali on the said date. When this misconduct came to the notice of the authorities disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and at the same time he was also prosecuted under section 471, P.P.C. Read with section 420, P.P.C.
2. ' A Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore vide judgment dated 10-11-1980 convicted the petitioner on both the counts, awarding him sentence of one year and a fine of Rs,200 or in default 3 months further R.I. Under section 471, P.P.C. And two years, R.I. And a fine of Rs,2,000 or in default 6 months' further R.I. Under section 420, P.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal, however, the learned Judge of the High Court giving him benefit of doubt acquitted him vide judgment dated 26-9-1984.
3. ' Meanwhile in the departmental proceedings which were initiated against the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police finding his explanation to the charge-sheet issued against him to be unsatisfactory dismissed him from service vide order dated 1-5-1977. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service filed an appeal before the D.I.-G. Which was rejected side order dated 5-10-1985. Since it is the order of the D.I.-G. Which has been mainly criticised before us, the relevant part of it is re-produced below:- "He was also convicted and sentenced to one year's R.I. And a fine of Rs,200 or in default 3 months, R.I. Under section 471, P.P.C. And 2 years, R.I. And a fine of Rs,2,000 or in default of 6 months, R.I. Under section 420, P.P.C.
4. ' The appeal as well as oral explanation of the appellant have been considered. He has been convicted and sentenced to one year R.I. And fined Rs,200 under section 471, P.P.C. And two years, R.I. And fined Rs,2,000 under section 420, P.P.C. Such like police officials bring bad name to the Department. He is considered to be unfit for retention in service. Has no weight in his appeal. Hence appeal is rejected.
5. ' In support of this petition for leave to appeal the main contention urged by Mr. Dilawar Mahmood is that the D.I.-G. Was not conscious of the fact that on appeal against the judgment of the learned Special Judge the High Court had set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to him by the learned Special Judge? And had acquitted him. Since the order of dismissing the petitioner's appeal by the D.I.G. Was based only on the assumption that he stood convicted by a competent Court, the said order was liable to be set aside.
6. This contention prima facie has force, but we find that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the D.I.-G. Before the Service Tribunal, where this point has been fully considered and the order of the High Court closely examined. The Service Tribunal has found that the judgment of acquittal of the High Court was of no avail to the petitioner as he had been acquitted only by giving him the benefit of doubt. Furthermore, on facts it observed that the pla of the petitioner that he had promptly reported himself for duty at the Police Lines on 30-4-1977 and it was the fault of the Head Moharrir who did not record his arrival in the daily diary, for which lapse the petitioner could not be held responsible was untenable. It was observed that the petitioner himself had produced a copy of the daily diary report on 16-8-1978 showing his departure from the Kotwali. If he had indeed reported for duty at the Police Lines on 30-4-1977 then there was no occasion for producing a copy showing his departure from Kotwali on 16-8-1978.
7. ' We further observe that even in the order of the High Court it has been observed:- "As for the offence under section 420, P.P.C. Dishonest and fraudulent inducement to someone to deliver the property is a precondition. In the case in hand, no one has appeared to depose inducement by the appellant, so much so that no one has appeared to state that the accused had made anyone to believe that he was on duty and as such entitled to receive the pay. In this view of the matter, the appellant cannot be held guilty of offence punishable under section 420, P.P.C."
8. ' This shows that the petitioner did not draw any salary for 15 months. After his transfer to the Police Lines he appears to have only been wandering about. There is no room in a disciplined force like the police for such an officer.
9. Dismissed.