1989SCMR333 (PLP)
AMIR ABDULLAH — Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR333 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | AMIR ABDULLAH — Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR333 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR333 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR333 (PLP) (AMIR ABDULLAH — Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Zainul Abidin, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Farooq Hassan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th July, 1988.
- Muhammad Zainul Abidin, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Farooq Hassan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 19-1-1982 of the Punjab Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 559 of 1980.)
Art. 212(3)--Civil service--Dismissal from service--Acquittal from criminal charge--Relevancy of judgment in criminal case and departmental proceedings- Prosecution on criminal charge and departmental disciplinary proceedings- Distinction--Dismissal from service on charge of misconduct, challenged--Plea that as petitioner had been acquitted of criminal charge, it was 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. Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore and others v. Anis-ur Rahman Khan P L D 1985 SC 134 rel.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑ The petitioner was a foot‑constable in the establishment of Superintendent of Police, Mianwali. He was sent on deputation to the Special Branch at Lahore. On 20‑8‑1978 a team including a captain from the Army and a Magistrate raided the L.M.C. Quarters at Lahore. A number of constables, including the petitioner, together with three other persons, were found gambling. The raiding party apprehended the petitioner together with the others and recovered the stake money of Rs. 1,295 alongwith playing cards and dices. A case under the Gambling Ordinance was registered against them. The petitioner and his companions were challaned. Flowever, they were acquitted by a Magistrate under section 249‑A, Criminal Procedure Code without recording any evidence with the finding that the charge against them was groundless and not likely to succeed but without giving reason in support thereof.
2. The petitioner was sent back to his parent establishment. The Superintendent of Police, Mianwali, gave him a show‑cause notice. He did not dispute his presence in the room in question at the time of the raid but stated that at the relevant time he was merely chatting with another constable. His explanation was found unsatisfactory and he was dismissed from service. His appeal before the Deputy Inspector‑General and revision before the Inspector -General of Police remained unsuccessful. He then filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal. This too failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. In support of this petition it was first contended that as the petitioner had. been acquitted of the criminal charge it was not open to the departmental authorities to take disciplinary action against him. This argument is without any merit. The objects of prosecution on a criminal charge and departmental disciplinary proceedings are entirely different; one relates to the enforcement of the criminal liability and the other is concerned with the service discipline. Acquittal on a criminal charge has no bearing on the disciplinary proceedings (See Deputy inspector‑General of Police, Lahore and others v. Anis‑ur‑Rehman Khan; PLD1985SC134.
4. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner relates to interpretation of rule 11, Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. This rule relates to procedure of inquiry against officers lent to another Government or Authority. This rule is inapplicable in the case of the petitioner as the entire disciplinary proceedings were taken against him by his parent establishment.
5. No other point has been raised. This petition is dismissed as without any merit. M.I./A‑317/S Petition dismissed.