2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑R.6(3)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Acquittal in criminal case‑‑‑Criminal charge and departmental proceedings‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Criminal case of dacoity on gun point was registered against civil servant and on the same facts departmental proceedings were also initiated against him‑‑‑Civil servant was acquitted 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 he should have been reinstated in service‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Objects of prosecution on 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 of civil servant in criminal case did not have any substantial bearing on the initiation of disciplinary action and its result‑‑‑Serious charge of decoity on gun point had been levelled against the civil servant which was supported by complainant and other prosecution witnesses before Inquiry Officer‑‑‑Necessary formalities as envisaged under Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, had been complied with by affording opportunity of hearing to civil servant at highest departmental level‑‑‑ Performance of civil servant was not assessed as 'satisfactory' and the subjective assessment of department regarding his eligibility qua retention of civil servant in service could not be questioned‑‑‑No injustice had been done to civil servant‑‑‑Conclusion arrived at by Service Tribunal being well based did not warrant any interference .and no question of law of public importance was involved in the matter‑‑‑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. Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th April, 2003. JAVED IQBAL, J‑‑‑Pursuant to registration of a criminal case vide F.I.R. No. 156 dated 22‑3‑1995 under section 392 P.P.C. at Police Station R.A. Bazar, Rawalpindi for alleged commission of decoity in the house of one Manzoor Ahmad on gun point disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner which culminated into dismissal of his service. After exhausting the departmental remedies the petitioner approached the learned Punjab Service Tribunal by means of appeal which has been dismissed, hence this petition.

2. We have heard Mr. Tanvir Ahmed, learned A.O.R. on behalf of petitioner at length. The main thrust of the argument is that after acquittal in criminal case the petitioner should have been reinstated in service. 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 on 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 initiation of disciplinary action and its result. There is no denying the fact that a very serious charge of decoity on gun point has been leveled against the petitioner which was supported by the complainant and prosecution witnesses before the Inquiry Officer. The necessary formalities as envisaged under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 have been complied with in letter and spirit by affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the highest level. It is worth mentioning that the performance of the petitioner was not assessed as "satisfactory" and the subjective assessment of the department regarding his eligibility qua retention of the petitioner in service cannot be questioned. No injustice has been done to petitioner. The conclusion as arrived at by learned Service Tribunal being well based does not warrant any interference and besides that no question of law of public importance is involved in the matter on the basis whereof leave to appeal could be granted.

3. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and leave refused. M.H./Z‑4/SC Petition dismissed.