1990 PLP 1556 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The Petitioner seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 14‑6‑1987 whereby his appeal against an order of dismissal from service, was dismissed.

2. On a complaint having been made, the Petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 24th of January, 1984 for having manhandled a witness, for having given him beating and for having deprived him of money. Thereafter the Petitioner was dismissed from service. His appeal and revision failed and he approached the Service Tribunal in the matter. In the meantime, his criminal trial for having extorted money and receiving illegal gratification resulted in acquittal at the level of the High Court The acquittal was pressed into service for claiming exoneration from the charge.

3. As regards the nature of the charge the Service Tribunal observed as hereunder:‑‑ "It is, therefore, crystal clear that if dismissal order is based on conviction and subsequently if the conviction is set aside then in that eventuality the order of dismissal should also beset aside. But in the present case it is clear from the portion of show‑cause notice reproduced in the opening para of this judgment that the appellant was dismissed from service not on the basis of the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anticorruption rather it could not have been, because the judgment was pronounced on 16‑11‑1985 the disciplinary action was taken against the appellant in view of serious accusation against him. There is no bar in the law for proceeding departmentally against accused simultaneously and without waiting for the result of the criminal trial. Moreover, the standard of proof in departmental inquiry will not be the same as in criminal case."

4. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the charge was identical to the criminal prosecution and that the acquittal in one should also result in setting aside of the other.

5. The charge departmentally framed against the Petitioner included three charges which were not directly the subject‑matter of criminal trial and these were as hereunder:‑‑ (i) "you caught hold of Muhammad Sharif s/o Jewan caste Kasab r/o Chak No. 394/JB, P.S. Chuttiana on the pretext that he had deposed against his friend Muhammad Hussain in a case under Prohibition Order in the Court of Ch. Amir Ali on 19‑12‑1983; (ii) you had requested this witness "not to depose against his friend"; and (iii) ultimately, you took him to P.P. City Toba Tek Singh where he was given beating."

6. The delay m lodging of the criminal case and proof beyond reasonable doubt were made the basis for recording the acquittal of the Petitioner by the High Court. Such acquittal by itself will not impair the conclusiveness of the departmental inquiry which had taken place after a show‑cause notice.

7. No case for leave to appeal is made out. Hence leave to appeal is refused. H.B.T./M‑1129/S Leave Refused.