GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary, Education Department, Peshawar vs FAZLULLAH
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 through departmental action. Although he was later granted a presidential pardon, the pardon order explicitly stipulated that it did not restore him to public office. The respondent's departmental appeals and initial constitutional petition were unsuccessful, but the Service Tribunal allowed his appeal and ordered his reinstatement. The Government filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether a pardon granted to a convicted civil servant automatically restores them to service and vitiates a departmental dismissal based on the conviction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that a pardon does not amount to an acquittal or set aside the underlying conviction, and that the pardon order expressly barred restoration to public office, thereby rendering the Service Tribunal's reinstatement order unsustainable. The Court established that a pardon does not expunge a conviction unless specifically set aside, and does not automatically entitle a dismissed public servant to reinstatement.
- Does a presidential pardon amount to an acquittal or set aside a conviction?
- Does a pardon automatically restore a convicted civil servant to public office?
- Can a Service Tribunal order the reinstatement of a civil servant dismissed following a valid conviction when the pardon expressly bars restoration to service?
- 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, photo stat copies of Question Paper of English `B' were recovered from some persons 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 Government 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 is submitted that no inquiry was necessary in the given circumstances.
Leave is granted.