2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR (MEMBER‑II).‑‑‑As per appellants after his appointment as A.S.‑I. on 26‑11‑1985 and promotion as Sub‑Inspector on 26‑7‑1993 he was performing his duties in Police Department. while on 12‑8‑1997 through order of respondent No. 1 his services were suspended. 'thereafter, on 19‑8‑1997‑charge‑sheet was served upon him and one Haji Muhammad Ismail DSP/SDPO was appointed as Inquiry Officer by respondent No.1. He (the appellant) replied the charge sheet while the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry without giving him any opportunity to cross‑examine the witnesses. Final show‑cause notice was served upon him on 11‑12‑1997, which was replied by him, whereby he denied the allegations. The Inquiry Officer completed the inquiry in his absence, while respondent NO. 1 without hearing him imposed major penalty and dismissed him from services through order dated 30‑12‑1997. Whereupon he filed the departmental appeal. The appellant has prayed for setting aside of his dismissal order and for his reinstatement on the grounds that the impugned order is contrary to law and facts, while the conduct of the Inquiry Officer was partial, which was also'brought into notice of respondent No. 1, but the same was not considered: further, no opportunity was given to him to cross‑examine the witnesses. Furthermore, no first show‑cause notice was served upon him as such the inquiry proceedings are illegal. Moreover, before passing of judgment by the competent Court, the imposing of major penalty of dismissal from service is harsh and unjust, thus liable to be set aside.

2. In reply respondent No.1 strongly denied the contention of the appellant. According to him the inquiry was conducted in accordance with law, while opportunity was giver to the appellant re cross examine the witnesses. Further, the authority has the power to give charge‑sheet without issuance of show‑cause notice after completion of preliminary inquiry. Further, the complainant of criminal case has fully implicated him (the appellant) in commission of the offence. He has prayed for dismissal of appeal being without merits.

3. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 in their separate replies denied the contention of the appellant and prayed for rejection of appeal being, baseless.

4. The perusal of the record reveals that a criminal case has been filed against the appellant wherein it has been alleged that the appellant alongwith constable Fetah Sher and constable Munir Ahmed and also inconvenience with one Fabia alias Sumera (Humera) extracted money from persons, 13 committed Harabha. Further said women enticed the citizens he (the appellant) supported her connived and in partnership committed the alleged offence. On basis of this F.I.R. case was registered against all the nominated persons including the appellant, while criminal proceedings were initiated against them. During pendency of criminal proceedings before competent Court the Department initiated actions against the appellant. After conducting inquiry awarded him major penalty of dismissal from service. The appellant is aggrieved of the same, thus approached this Tribunal.

5. As per appellant the inquiry proceedings wore not carried out in accordance with law and Rules. Further, the conduct of Inquiry Officer was partial. Furthermore, no proper opportunity was given to him for cross-examining the witnesses. Moreover; no first show‑cause notice has been served upon him. Despite affidavits of complainant and his father about non -involvement of the appellant in commission of the offence, same was not considered by the Inquiry ‑ Officer. Furthermore, respondent No.1 has not given him any opportunity of hearing. Moreover, as the criminal case has been pending before a competent Court as such imposing of major penalty is not proper rather it is harsh. Further, no opportunity was given to him for production of witnesses. As per relevant Rules i.e. The Police Disciplinary Rules, 1975, wherein rule, 5 sub‑rule (3)(a) and sub rule (4) are relevant. Whereby it is provided that if the authority decides that it is necessary to have departmental inquiry, through an Inquiry Officer, he shall appoint an Inquiry Officer, who is senior to the rank of the accused. No first show cause notice is necessary in said case. The procedure of departmental inquiry is provided in rule 6 of the said Rules. In the same also there is no provision in respect of issuance' of first show‑cause notice. The contention of the appellant in same respect is without force. No further defect is pointed out in conducting of inquiry proceedings.

6. The appellant has further asserted that he was not given proper opportunity to cross‑examine the witnesses. The appellant has not explained that what does he mean by proper opportunity. This seems that the appellant was given opportunity to cross‑examine the witnesses but to what extent nothing has come on record. Further, the appellant has also alleged that the conduct of the Inquiry Officer was partial. But nothing in this respect has come on record. There is nothing on record that during course of inquiry he has approached the authorities in same respect in writing. This contention is also baseless, thus of no effect. The appellant has also relied upon the affidavits given by the complainant and his father, whereof they have asserted that he (the appellant) is not involved in commission of the offence. Photo copies of these affidavits are present on record. These affidavits are of much less help to the appellant as the persons giving affidavits have asserted that the appellant was not present at the site at commission of the offence. But it is silent in respect of the allegation that the appellant is involved in the commission of the offence as ring leader of the gang". Thus, his physical presence is immaterial.

7. The point on which the appellant paid more stress is to the effect that as the criminal case has been pending against him and no final decision has been taken in the same, as such imposing of major penalty on basis of the same complaint is harsh and liable to be dismissed. There is no such provision in law. The Department is not bound to suspend the inquiry and other Departmental proceedings against the accused person till decision of the criminal case. Judicial proceedings and Departmental proceedings are distinct with each other. During pendency of present appeal the appellant has placed the judgment made in'said case by learned Additional Session Judge; V. Quetta on 19‑2‑2000, whereby the appellant has been acquitted of the charge giving benefit, of doubt to him. Though the appellant has been acquitted from said criminal case by competent Court, but due to this decision the Department is not bound to reverse its decision already taken. Further action, can be taken against the official departmentally in addition to judicial proceedings. There is no ~ bar on simultaneous proceedings, Departmental and Judicial. The Department is very much competent to take any action against the official and award his punishment in accordance with relevant law irrespective of judicial proceedings or judicial decision taken in same respect. The contention of the appellant in same respect has no force. It is held by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P. No.384 of 1982 dated 20‑7‑1988 reported in 1989 SCMR p. 333: "Dismissal from service. ‑‑‑Acquittal from criminal charge, relevancy of judgment in criminal case and departmental proceedings‑‑‑Distinction, Dismissal from service on charge of misconduct challenged plea that as petitioner has been acquitted of criminal charge, it is not open to the Departmental Authorities to take `disciplinary action against him repelled‑‑‑Objects of prosecution on criminal charge and departmental disciplinary proceedings were entirely different‑‑‑One relates to the enforcement of criminal liability and the other is concerned with the service discipline‑‑‑Acquittal on criminal charge had no 'bearing on disciplinary proceedings." (sic) The appellant cannot take any benefit of said decision in criminal case though ? by the competent Court.

8. In view of above discussion the appellant has completely failed to establish his contention. He has failed to point out, and establish any legal or factual defect in conducting of inquiry and awarding of punishment. Thus, no interference is required in same respect. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed being without merits. The appeal is hereby dismissed. No orders as to cost. File after completion be consigned to record. H.B.T./14/Q Appeal dismissed.