PROVINCE OF SINDH through Advocate-General, Sindh vs PETER JOHN
This petition is directed against the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal whereby the respondent police constable's service appeal was allowed based on a concession made by the Additional Advocate-General. The respondent had been discharged from service under Police Rule 12.21 following his involvement in a criminal case, but was subsequently acquitted by the trial court. During the proceedings before the Tribunal, the respondent agreed to forgo back benefits in exchange for reinstatement, to which the Government's law officer consented with 'no objection'. The Supreme Court examined the contention that the Tribunal should have independently decided the case on merits and considered limitation issues instead of acting on the concession. The Court held that the concession made by the Additional Advocate-General on behalf of the Government for reinstatement without back benefits is binding on the petitioner-Government. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the impugned judgment, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal, affirming the principle that a formal concession made by a duly authorized state counsel before a tribunal binds the government.
- Whether a concession made by an Additional Advocate-General regarding the reinstatement of an employee without back benefits is binding on the Government?
- Does an acquittal in a criminal case nullify the grounds for discharge from service under Police Rule 12.21 when addressed in departmental proceedings?
- Is a service tribunal required to independently decide a time-barred appeal on merits when the parties reach a consensual settlement before it?
- Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 17(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Rule 12.21, Police Rules 1934
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J.---This petition is directed against the judgment dated 22-5-2001 passed by the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No, 91 of 2000.
2. Brief facts are that the respondent on 31-8-1995 while serving as Constable was involved in Criminal Case No,169 of 1995 at Police Station DraKhshan, Karachi under section 364, P.P.C. Read with section 17(3) of Haraba Ordinance. On 9-9-1995, the S.H.O. Of Police Station Drakhshan, Karachi submitted 'misconduct report' against the respondent to the S.S.P., District East, Karachi, on the basis whereof the latter discharged the respondent from service on 8-10-1995 under Police Rule 12.21. The respondent after exhausting departmental remedy, approached the Tribunal for redress of his grievance. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that during the pendency of the departmental appeal, he was acquitted by the trial Court on 23-8-1999 but the appellate authority had not assigned any reason for rejecting his appeal. He further contended that the ground on which he was discharged from service was no more in existence at the time of passing of final order by the Departmental Authority as he had already been acquitted from the criminal case, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated in service. During the course of arguments the respondent made a statement that he would be satisfied if the appeal is Allowed to the extent of reinstatement into service and would not claim any back benefits. The learned A.A.-G. Appearing on behalf of the Government stated 'no objection' to the suggested course on behalf of the petitioner subject to relinquishment of back benefits. Hence, the appeal was allowed by the Tribunal in the above terms, vide the impugned judgment.
3. It is, inter alia, argued on behalf of the petitioner-Government that instead of allowing the appeal on the basis of the concession made by the learned A.A.-G. The Tribunal should have applied its independent mind to the law on the subject, the facts of the case and noted that the appeal before it was barred by time.
4. After hearing the learned Additional Advocate-General for the petitioner-Government, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment in that the concession made by the learned A.A.-G. On behalf of the Government for reinstatement of the respondent without back benefits is binding on the petitioner-Government.
' Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave declined.