2007 PLC (C (PLP)

FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.

This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 2-2-2000 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No.474 of 1998.

2. The petitioner, former A.S.-I. of Police, was removed from service by the respondent No.1, by order, dated 23-5-1997. The Inquiry Officer had also found him guilty of the charge that he along with others, while intoxicated, had created an awfully awkward situation in the village Mokhai on Eid day in a car which had earlier been seized by the police under section 550, Cr.P.C. with some liquor therein. A criminal case F.I.R. No.30 was also registered against the petitioner and others under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement and Hadd) Order, 1979 in which the petitioner was acquitted by the Criminal Court. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal which was rejected by the respondent No.2 by order, dated 15-10-1997. Thereafter the petitioner preferred Appeal No.474 of 1998 which was dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned order, dated 2-2-2000.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already been exonerated from the same charge, by a Criminal Court of a Magistrate. Therefore, there could be no justification to impose, upon the petitioner, the major penalty of removal from service as the very basis for the penalty had evaporated. It was further argued that the departmental punishment was discriminatory in nature. Even otherwise the major penalty of removal of the petitioner from service was not called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel relied on the case of Inspector-General of Police, Police Headquarters Office, Karachi and 2 others v. Shafqat Mehmood 2003 SCMR 207, Rashid Mehmood v. Additional Inspector-General of Police and 2 others 2002 SCMR 57 and Arif Ghafoor v. Managing Director, H.M.C. Taxila and others PLD 2002 SC 13 in support of his submission that a civil servant could not be imposed any departmental penalty if he had been acquitted by a Criminal Court on merits on the same charge.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The Tribunal recorded the following conclusions in para. 8 of the impugned judgment, on' the basis of evidence and other material on record:-- "(1) that the appellant allegedly used a care taken into possession under section 550, Cr.P.C.; (2) that he had consumed liquor; (3) that he had gone to the area which was beyond his jurisdiction, raised hue and cry abused shouted at the villagers at odd hours in the night; and (4) two bottles of liquor were also recovered from him." We also find that the co-accused Muhammad Yusuf, A.S.-I. was a promotee who was reduced in rank as Head Constable whereas the petitioner was removed from service as he had been appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector of police by way of initial recruitment. The departmental penalty was imposed on the petitioner, not on account of criminal proceedings but, as a consequence of departmental inquiry having been conducted in which the petitioner was found guilty of the charge. It is now well-settled that the departmental and criminal proceedings can be taken simultaneously and independently of each other. Reference may be made to the cases of Deputy Inspector-General of Police v. Anis-ur-Rehman Khan PLD 1985 SC 134, Muhammad Ayub v. The Chairman, Electricity Board, WAPDA, Peshawar PLD 1987 SC 195, Muhammad Tufail v. Assistant Commissioner/Collector 1989 SCMR 316, Amir Abdullah v. Superintendent of Police and others 1989 SCMR 333, Muhammad Nazir v. The Superintendent of Police, Toba Tek Singh and others 1990 SCMR 1556, Talib Hussain v. Anar Gul Khan and others 1993 SCMR 2177, Muhammad Izharul Ahsan Qureshi v. Messrs P.I.A.C. 1994 SCMR 1608, Mir Nawaz Khan v. Federal Government through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others 1996 SCMR

315. In the precedent cases of Shafqat Mahmood, Rashid Mahmood and Arif Ghafoor cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable inasmuch as in those cases question of departmental action only on the basis of a criminal case resulting in conviction of acquittal on merits was involved. No exception can be taken to the findings of fact recorded by the departmental authorities and the Tribunal. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.

5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. M.H./D-34/SC Petition dismissed.