GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. vs FAZLULLAH
This matter arises from a petition filed by the Government of N.-W.F.P. against the decision of the Service Tribunal, which had directed the reinstatement of the respondent in service. The respondent, a Superintendent at an Examination Centre, was convicted by a Military Summary Court for offences relating to leaked question papers and subsequently dismissed from service following departmental action. Although the respondent was later granted a pardon, the pardon order explicitly stipulated that it did not restore him to public office, and his conviction was never set aside. The core legal question is whether a pardon granted to a convicted government servant automatically results in reinstatement or sets aside a departmental dismissal based on the conviction. The Supreme Court considered whether the Service Tribunal's order was sustainable in light of the fact that pardon does not amount to acquittal and that departmental action was taken independently. The holding establishes that a pardon does not expunge the conviction or automatically restore a dismissed government servant to office when the pardon order expressly excludes such restoration.
- Does a pardon granted to a convicted government servant automatically set aside a departmental dismissal from service?
- Whether a pardon amounts to an acquittal that restores a convict to public office.
- Is an inquiry necessary under Rule 8 of the N.-W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 when a government servant is convicted of a charge leading to imprisonment?
- Rule 8, N.-W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973
ORDER
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The respondent was appointed as Superintendent at the Examination Centre, Charsadda. During the examination, photostat copies of Question Paper of English 13' were recovered from some persosn in Mardan, and consequently, an F.I.R. Was registered. The respondent was arrested and tried in a Military Summary Court. He was convicted and sentenced to one year R.I., fine of Rs,50,000 or in default to suffer further R.I. For nine months and also 15 lashes in public. It was also directed that departmental action should also be taken against the respondent. As a result of departmental action, the respondent was dismissed from service with effect from 3-11-1983. The respondent filed mercy petitions on various occasions. The fine was remitted on three occasions and so also the punishment of lashes. Ultimately, on 8-9-1985 he was pardoned but it was made clear in the order that pardon does not restore convict person to public office. The respondent's Constitution petition was dismissed. However, the Service Tribunal allowed his appeal and directed that the respondent be .Reinstated in service. The Govenment being aggrieved has filed this petition.
2. The learned Advocate-General has submitted that the respondent's services were already dispensed with from 3-11-1983 and the pardon order clearly stipulates that the respondent would not be restored to service. His conviction was not set aside and pardon does not amount to acquittal of the respondent, therefore, the order of the Service Tribunal is not sustainable. Reliance has been placed on Rule 8 of the N.-W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. It was submitted that no inquiry was necessary in the given circumstances.