2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus REGIONAL POLICE OFFICER, SAHIWAL and another
| Citation | 2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial and Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus REGIONAL POLICE OFFICER, SAHIWAL and another |
| Primary Law | (b) Civil service, (a) Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Civil service, (a) Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial and Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus REGIONAL POLICE OFFICER, SAHIWAL and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Matteullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- 3. Learned Additional Advocate General opposes the plea on the ground of limitation occurring before the departmental authorities. However, he does not dispute that both the inquiry proceedings as well as the impugned order of dismissal dated 02.04.2012 was passed against the petitioner ex-parte.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 01.07.2016 of the Punjab Service Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 2838 of 2016)
Police official
Involvement in narcotics case
Subsequent acquittal by the High Court
Petitioner (police official) because of being arrested was not in a position to pursue his departmental remedies
Fundamental basis on which the impugned action of dismissal from service was passed against the petitioner had seized to exist after his acquittal in the narcotics case by the High Court
Acquittal of the petitioner by the High Court was a subsequent development that ought to be considered by the departmental authorities whilst considering disciplinary action against the petitioner
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, order of Service Tribunal was set aside with the direction that departmental authorities shall be at liberty to commence fresh disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of the record and by the grant of opportunity of hearing to him in accordance with law.
Concurrent departmental and criminal proceedings
Outcome of the disciplinary proceedings is not dependent upon the outcome of criminal proceedings. Khadim Hussain Qaiser, Additional A.G. on Court's Call.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.
File petitioner was alleged in case FIR No. 3/12 dated 03.01.2012 to be in possession of contraband drugs thereby committing offence under section 9(c), CNSA and possessing illicit arms, committing offence under section 13/20/65 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. Whilst the petitioner was in jail, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, inquiry was conducted behind his back and his written defence of being innocent was rejected. On the basis that he had tarnished the image of the police force, he was dismissed from service on 31.03.2012. The departmental appeal was dismissed for being time barred on 10.05.2016. The same result followed before the learned Tribunal through its impugned judgment dated 01.07.2016. Subsequently, the petitioner's appeal against his conviction succeeded before the learned High Court on 20.04.2017.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole basis for the dismissal of the petitioner from service is his alleged involvement in a criminal case under the CNSA. That involvement has been rejected by the learned Appellate Court through its judgment dated 20.04.2017 which was pronounced after the learned Tribunal rejected the petitioner's service appeal. The impugned judgment is claimed to be based on an allegation which has subsequently been rejected by the learned High Court. New facts have come into the field. Such facts were not considered by any of the learned fora below. In the circumstances, the petitioner has a right to be heard by the respondents in respect of his impugned dismissal from service.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General opposes the plea on the ground of limitation occurring before the departmental authorities. However, he does not dispute that both the inquiry proceedings as well as the impugned order of dismissal dated 02.04.2012 was passed against the petitioner ex-parte.
4. We note that the petitioner having been arrested on 04.12.2013 was not in a position to pursue his departmental remedies. Be that as it may, the fundamental basis on which the impugned action is passed against the petitioner has seized to exist. It is settled law that the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings is not dependent upon the outcome of criminal proceedings. However, the acquittal of the petitioner by the learned High Court on 20.04.2017 is a subsequent development that ought to be considered by the departmental authorities whilst considering disciplinary action against the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed. However, the respondent departmental authorities shall be at liberty to commence fresh disciplinary proceedings on the basis of the record and by the grant of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. MWA/M-43/SC Appeal allowed.