FALAK SHER vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which had altered the penalty of compulsory retirement to forfeiture of one year's approved service and reinstatement without back pay for a police constable. The petitioner was dismissed from service after two hardened criminals escaped from his guard custody, a penalty later converted to compulsory retirement and then partially modified by the Tribunal. The core legal questions involve whether acquittal in a criminal case nullifies departmental disciplinary proceedings and whether the petitioner was entitled to unconditional reinstatement. The Supreme Court held that criminal acquittal has no bearing on independent departmental disciplinary proceedings, and the petitioner was rightly penalized for his responsibility in the escape. The Court laid down the principle that criminal proceedings and departmental disciplinary proceedings are distinct and not interchangeable, and acquittal in a criminal trial does not bar or invalidate disciplinary action arising from the same incident.
- Does acquittal by a Criminal Court have a substantial bearing on the initiation or outcome of departmental disciplinary proceedings?
- Can a public servant claim unconditional reinstatement in service solely on the ground of acquittal in a criminal case arising from the same incident?
- Whether departmental proceedings and criminal trials are interchangeable and synonymous proceedings.
- Article 4, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Punjab Police (Efficiency and Disciplined) Rules, 1975
ORDER
' JAVED IQBAL, J.---Pursuant to escape of two hardened and desperate criminals from the police custody when the petitioner was on guard duty, 'action under the relevant disciplinary rules, was initiated which culminated into his dismissal from service by means of order, dated 28-6-1989 'passed by Superintendent of Police, Layyah. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred which was ejected by the D.I.-G., Police, Della 9hazi Khan vide order, dated 2-6-12-1991 and revision petition was accepted partly by I.-G. Police Punjab and penalty of dismissal from service was converted to that of compulsory retirement vide order, dated 3-1-1994 which was assailed by means of appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which has been partly accepted and the penalty of compulsory retirement was altered to that of forfeiture of one year's approved service and the petitioner was reinstated into service with the direction that the period he remained out of service shall be treated as leave without pay by means of judgment impugned.
2. Heard Syed Sardar Shah Bukhari, learned ASC on behalf of petitioner who mainly contended that the petitioner was acquitted in criminal case got registered against him by the Court on 30-9-1991 and therefore, he should have been reinstated unconditionally and the question of forfeiture of one year's approved service does not arise. It is next contended that in view of the provisions as contained in Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan the petitioner is entitled to be treated in accordance with law which aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Service Tribunal. It is urged emphatically that the case of petitioner was distinguishable from other two constables namely Allah Diwaya and Muhammad Azhar and the material distinction having substantial bearing on the face of the case has not been taken into consideration by the learned Service Tribunal which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.
3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of the petitioner in the light of record of the case. We have perused the judgment impugned carefully. After having gone through the entire record we are not persuaded to agree that in view of the acquittal of the petitioner he could not have been awarded any penalty as a result of disciplinary action for the simple reason that acquittal by a Criminal Court would have no substantial bearing on the initiation of disciplinary action and any penalty awarded as a result thereof being not interchangeable and synonymous proceedings. The law as laid dbwn in the following authorities lends full support to the above mentioned views:-- ' Deputy Inspector-General Police v. Anis-ur-Rehman Khan PLD 1995 SC 134; Muhammad Ayub v.
Chairman, E.B. WAPDA PLD 1927 SC 195; Muhammad Nazir v. Superintendent of Police 1990 SCM R 1556; Talib Hussain v. Anar Gul Khan 1993 SCM R 2177 2nd Arif Ghafoor v. Managing Director PLD 2002 SC 13 ' Being on guard duty, the petitioner was equally responsible for the escape of two hardened criminals and his role or responsibility is not distinguishable from the other constables as pressed time and again by the learned ASC on behalf of petitioner, hence the question of any preferential treatment does not arise. The legal formalities as envisaged in the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Disciplined) Rules, 1975 were adhered to strictly and no injustice whatsoever has been done to the petitioner. Besides what has been stated hereinabove it is to be noted that this petition is barred by 166 days and no plausible justification could be put forth on the basis whereof such an inordinate delay could be condoned. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Service Tribunal Punjab is strictly in accordance with law and settled norms of justice and hardly warrants any interference.
' The petition being meritless and barred by time is dismissed and leave refused.