P L D 1973 Lahore 259 (PLP)

The petitioner who was a Foot Constable in the Punjab Police was involved in a trap case for accepting certain illegal gratification and consequently departmental proceedings were initiated against him. A formal charge‑sheet was issued to him to which he submitted a reply denying his guilt. An Inquiry Officer was appointed who compiled his report on 27‑6‑1964. Thereafter a formal show‑cause notice was issued to him on 25‑7‑1964 and he was provided with a copy of the inquiry report. The petitioner filed his reply but not being satisfied with his explanation the S. S. P., Lahore on 19‑9‑1964, dismissed him from service. The petitioner was personally heard by him. The petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the D. I. G., Police on 19‑12‑1964. The petitioner filed a revision which also met the same fate and was dismissed on 27‑11‑1966. The petitioner then filed a mercy petition which too brought no fruit and was rejected on 12‑7‑

67. After exhausting all these departmental remedies the petitioner filed the present writ petition in this Court on 16‑1‑1968 challenging the aforesaid proceedings and orders.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in charge‑sheet issued to the petitioner the provisional penalty indicated was that of compulsory retirement whereas the ultimate order passed against him was that of dismissal from service. According to the learned counsel this variation renders all the proceedings and orders as a nullity. The contention has no force. No doubt, in the initial charge‑sheet, the penalty indicated was that of compulsory retirement, but in the formal show‑cause notice (Annex. D), which was issued on 25‑7‑1964, the penalty indicated was that of dismissal. In this way, the show‑cause notice, it would appear, was quite in order as judged from the ultimate penalty imposed upon the petitioner. It is to be pointed out that in the reply to the show‑cause notice, the petitioner did not take any exception of the kind which has been urged before me now. He did not raise this point even in his appeal before the D. I.‑G. Both compulsory retirement and dismissal are major penalties and procedure for enquiry in either case is the same. The petitioner in this respect, it would thus appear, did not suffer any prejudice and examined from whatever point of view, the objection raised can be of no help to the petitioner and is hereby repelled.

3. The next point argued was that the petitioner had filed an application .69 fore the Inquiry Officer for engaging a counsel and also pointing out that he would like to produce the Inquiry Officer himself as his defence witness. It is submitted that the petitioner for these reasons desired the transfer of his case to any other Inquiry Officer. These contentions of the petitioner, ft is submitted, were not paid any heed by the authorities concerned and, therefore, the enquiry proceedings conducted by the concerned enquiry officer, were vitiated. These contentions have no merits. It was within the discretion of the authorities concerned to transfer or not to transfer the enquiry proceedings and if they were not impressed of the bona fides of the pleas e advanced by the petitioner in that behalf, their orders cannot be said to be without lawful authority in any manner. As regards the engagement of a counsel, an accused official in departmental enquiry has no vested right to claim this privilege. The order refusing to allow to engage a counsel, therefore, cannot be said to be without lawful authority, especially, when the prosecution also was not represented by any counsel. Learned counsel submitted that the S. S. P., Lahore, had actually not passed any orders on the aforesaid application of the petitioner which tantamounts to failure to exercise jurisdic tion in this respect. It is to be pointed out that the application had been rejected by the Inquiry Officer, whereafter, it was sent up by him to the S. S. P., Lahore, who examined the same and placed it on record and did not feel inclined to make any interference. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any failure on the part of the S. S. P., to exercise jurisdiction in the matter.

4. The last point argued was that a judicial case had also been initiated against the petitioner in the Court of a Magistrate wherein the petitioner was acquitted. In that view of the matter, it is argued that departmental enquiry against the petitioner was void on account of principle of double jeopardy. The contention has no force. It was laid down in Shafqat Mahmood Lodhi v. The Accountant‑General, West Pakistan Lahore (P L D 1968 Lah. 786), that there was no bar on the part of the authorities concerned to initiate both, namely, judicial as well as depart mental proceedings against a delinquent officer.

5. No other point was argued before me.

6. The result is that the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs. K. B. A. Petition dismissed.