2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
GHULAM YASIN Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE PUNJAB, LAHORE and others
| Citation | 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal, Falak Sher and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM YASIN Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE PUNJAB, LAHORE and others |
| Primary Law | (b) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal, Falak Sher and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (GHULAM YASIN Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL OF POLICE PUNJAB, LAHORE and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.G. Tariq Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for petitioner (absent).
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th May, 2003.
- 2. Mr. A.G. Tariq Chaudhry, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of petitioner and mainly contended that learned Service Tribunal has failed to appreciate the legal and factual aspects of the controversy to its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is next contended that after the acquittal of petitioner in criminal case got registered against him no further disciplinary action could have been initiated on the same ground which amounts to double jeopardy which aspect of the matter has been ignored by learned Service Tribunal without any cogent reasoning which caused a serious prejudice against the petitioner. It is next contended that the criminal case got registered vide F.I.R. No.332 at Police Station Civil Lines under sections 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 for the alleged abduction, of one Mst. Asifa Naureen could not be proved by the prosecution as no worthy of credence evidence could be led which resulted in acquittal of Petitioner by means of order dated 18‑5‑2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge which should have been kept in view by the department and ignorance whereof amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice fair play and equity.
- 3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of the petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 and perused the judgment impugned. The main thrust of the arguments of learned Advocate Supreme Court is that after acquittal in criminal case no disciplinary proceedings could have been initiated which in our, considered opinion is a misconception of law. It is well‑settled by now that "objects of prosecution on criminal charge and departmental proceedings are entirely different; one relates. to the enforcement of criminal liability and the other is concerned with service discipline. Acquittal of criminal charge had no bearing on disciplinary proceedings". Amir Abdullah v. Superintendent of Police (1989 SCMR 333), Deputy Inspector General of, Police v. Anis‑ur‑Rehman Khan (PLD 1985 SC 134), Muhammad Nazir v. Superintendent of Police (1990 SCMR 1556), Nawaz Khan v. Federal Government (1996 SCMR 315), Arif Ghafoor v. Managing Director (PLD 2002 SC 13). The acquittal of petitioner in criminal case would have no substantial bearing on the disciplinary proceedings which culminated into dismissal of the petitioner from service. The acquittal in a criminal case does not constitute a bar for initiation of disciplinary action.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑‑ ‑‑‑R.6(3)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Acquittal m criminal case‑‑‑Criminal charge and departmental proceedings‑‑‑Scope and effect entirely different‑ ‑‑Criminal case was registered against civil servant and on the same facts departmental proceedings were also initiated against him‑‑‑Civil servant was by the Trial Court from the criminal case while departmental authorities dismissed him from service‑‑‑Dismissal order was maintained by Service Tribunal‑‑‑Plea raised by the civil servant was that after acquittal in criminal case no further departmental inquiry could have been initiated‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Objects of prosecution or, criminal charge and departmental proceedings were entirely different; one related to the enforcement of criminal liability and the other was concerned with service discipline‑‑‑Acquittal on criminal charge had no bearing on disciplinary proceedings‑‑‑Acquittal in criminal case did not constitute a bar for initiation of disciplinary action‑‑‑No jurisdictional flaw or legal error was pointed out by the civil servant in the judgment passed by the Service Tribunal‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Amir Abdullah v. Superintendent of Police 1989 SCMR 333; Deputy Inspector General of Police v. Anis‑ur‑Rehman Khan PLD 1985 SC 134; Muhammad Nazir v. Superintendent of Police 1990 SCMR 1556; Nawaz Khan v. Federal Government 1996 SCMR 315 and Arif Ghafoor v. Managing Director PLD 2002 SC 13 ref. ‑‑‑‑R.6(3)‑‑‑Punjab Service Tribunal Act (IX of 1974), S.4‑‑‑Wilful absence‑‑‑Proof‑‑‑Interference by Supreme Court ‑‑‑Factum of wilful absence being question of fact was determined by Police department and determination whereof had been upheld by the Service Tribunal‑‑ Effect‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to upset such determination in absence of any concrete reasoning. Muhammad Azim v. Chief Engineer 1991 SCMR 255; Muhammad Binyamin v. WAPDA 1991 SCMR 383; Muhammad Munir Ahmad v. WAPDA 1990 SCMR 907; Munir Ahmad v. Punjab Service Tribunal 1990 SCMR 1005 and Muhammad Jaffar Toor v. Superintending Engineer 1989 SCMR 1470 ref.
Judgment & Decree
JAVED IQBAL, J‑‑‑Pursuant to disciplinary action initiated unfer the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline), Rules, 1975 on account (if inefficiency and misconduct the petitioner was dismissed from service on 8‑5‑2000. Being aggrieved a departmental appeal was filed which was rejected on 29‑11‑2000 and revision petition met the same fate vide order dated 13‑9‑2001. The petitioner approached learned Punjab Service Tribunal by means of appeal which has partly been accepted and penalty of dismissal from service has been converted to that of compulsory retirement, hence this petition.
2. Mr. A.G. Tariq Chaudhry, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of petitioner and mainly contended that learned Service Tribunal has failed to appreciate the legal and factual aspects of the controversy to its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is next contended that after the acquittal of petitioner in criminal case got registered against him no further disciplinary action could have been initiated on the same ground which amounts to double jeopardy which aspect of the matter has been ignored by learned Service Tribunal without any cogent reasoning which caused a serious prejudice against the petitioner. It is next contended that the criminal case got registered vide F.I.R. No.332 at Police Station Civil Lines under sections 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 for the alleged abduction, of one Mst. Asifa Naureen could not be proved by the prosecution as no worthy of credence evidence could be led which resulted in acquittal of Petitioner by means of order dated 18‑5‑2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge which should have been kept in view by the department and ignorance whereof amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice fair play and equity.
3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of the petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 and perused the judgment impugned. The main thrust of the arguments of learned Advocate Supreme Court is that after acquittal in criminal case no disciplinary proceedings could have been initiated which in our, considered opinion is a misconception of law. It is well‑settled by now that "objects of prosecution on criminal charge and departmental proceedings are entirely different; one relates. to the enforcement of criminal liability and the other is concerned with service discipline. Acquittal of criminal charge had no bearing on disciplinary proceedings". Amir Abdullah v. Superintendent of Police (1989 SCMR 333), Deputy Inspector General of, Police v. Anis‑ur‑Rehman Khan (PLD 1985 SC 134), Muhammad Nazir v. Superintendent of Police (1990 SCMR 1556), Nawaz Khan v. Federal Government (1996 SCMR 315), Arif Ghafoor v. Managing Director (PLD 2002 SC 13). The acquittal of petitioner in criminal case would have no substantial bearing on the disciplinary proceedings which culminated into dismissal of the petitioner from service. The acquittal in a criminal case does not constitute a bar for initiation of disciplinary action.
4. The factum of willful absence being question of fact has been determined at first instance by the Police Department and determination whereof has been upheld by learned Service Tribunal which cannot be upset in absence of any concrete reasoning which is lacking in this case. "Even otherwise, where no substantial question of law, much less question of law of public importance, had been raised in appeal, finding of Service Tribunal being a finding of fact would not call, for any interference by Supreme Court". Muhammad Azim v. Chief Engineer (1991 SCMR 255), Muhammad Binyamin v. WAPDA (1991 SCMR 383), Muhammad Munir Ahmad v. WAPDA (1990 SCMR 907), Munir Ahmad v. Punjab Service Tribunal (1990 SCMR 1005), Muhammad Jaffar Toor v. Superintending Engineer (1989 SCMR 1470).
5. No jurisdictional flaw or legal error could be pointed out in the judgment impugned. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and leave refused. M.H./G‑5/S Petition dismissed.