MUHAMMAD IZHARUL AHSAN QURESHI vs M/S. P.I.A.C.
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court, which upheld the termination of the petitioner's employment with the respondent Corporation. The petitioner, previously dismissed for submitting forged educational certificates, sought reinstatement following his acquittal in a parallel criminal case. The core legal question was whether an employee, whose dismissal from service was upheld by the Supreme Court, could re-agitate the matter based on a subsequent acquittal in criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the petitioner had attained finality and could not be reopened. The Court affirmed that domestic inquiry proceedings and criminal trials are distinct processes that can proceed concurrently. Crucially, the Court laid down the principle that a finding of guilt in domestic inquiry proceedings is independent and can survive regardless of an acquittal in a criminal case, particularly when the acquittal is based on technical grounds such as lack of corroboration. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the matter was barred by the principle of res judicata.
- Can domestic inquiry proceedings and criminal trials proceed concurrently?
- Does an acquittal in a criminal case automatically invalidate a prior dismissal from service based on a domestic inquiry?
- Can a petitioner re-agitate a dismissal order after the matter has attained finality through previous Supreme Court litigation?
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
ORDER
1. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Vide letter dated 15-3-1977, Assistant Director F.I.A. Informed respondent herein that their employee, who is petitioner before us, was arrested and committed to jail custody for indulging in criminal misconduct by preparing and issuing forged educational certificates and domiciles. On 23-4-1978 he was charge-sheeted for submitting to the respondent Corporation forged documents including Matric certificates and papers indicating false age and also showing that he had qualified for librarianship examination. Inquiry proceedings in the Corporation and criminal case in the competent Court proceeded and went along side by side.
2. Meanwhile petitioner challenged issue of Charge-sheet in the enquiry proceedings by the respondent by filing a civil suit, in which plaint was rejected for want of jurisdiction and in that connection it was held by the High Court and Supreme Court that suit was not maintainable and proper remedy for the petitioner was to file application under section 25-A of I.R.O. Since there was no stay order from the Court, inquiry proceedings concluded resulting in dismissal of the petitioner on 20-12-1978 for the reason that charges stood proved. Feeling aggrieved against the dismissal, petitioner approached but without success, Labour Court, Labour Appellate Tribunal, and High Court and their concurrent finding is positive that he furnished information to the respondent, which was incorrect and false. Not satisfied petitioner tried his luck in the Supreme Court but leave was refused and his petition was dismissed.
3. This is the third time that petitioner has approached this Court but now on the ground that after his acquittal in the criminal case by the trial Court, he submitted application to the respondent for reinstatement in service but his request was rejected. He filed grievance petition in the Labour Court, which was dismissed on the ground that order of dismissal passed by the respondent, unaffected by the result of the criminal case attained finality with decision of the Supreme Court, hence the grievance petition was hit by res judicata and limitation. After dismissal of appeal, petitioner filed Constitutional petition, which has been dismissed in limine by the High Court.
4. We are unable to find any flaw or legal infirmity with the finding of the High Court that petitioner has already exhausted his remedies upto the Supreme Court, while challenging his order of dismissal passed in enquiry proceedings, which he can not re-agitate on any fresh ground like acquittal in criminal case. We have perused the judgment of trial Court in the criminal case, which shows that finding of acquittal is recorded inter alia for reasons of lack of corroboration to the statement of Investigation Officer and no examination of five witnesses including mashirs in whose presence document Exhs. 40 to 43 and 75 to 79 were recovered. In any case the correct legal position in this context is that inquiry proceedings and criminal case can go on side by side and finding in inquiry proceedings can survive without being affected by finding of acquittal in the criminal case. No ground for interference is made out, hence leave is refused and this petition is dismissed.