1969 PLP 332 (SCMR)

G. M. Mirza, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Sheikh Masood Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 18th April 1969. M. R. KHAN, J.‑The petitioner, who was a Head Constable at the Police Post, Bhati Gate, Lahore, was tried for offences under sections 363 and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code on the accusation that he had kidnapped a minor girl named Mst. Azra and committed rape on her. He was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. After his acquittal, departmental proceedings were drawn up against him as the result of which he was dismissed from service on the 20th December 1967. The petitioner made a writ petition in the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, challenging the validity of the order of his dismissal from service. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal against the High Court's judgment dismissing the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having been acquitted in the criminal case, a departmental enquiry against him, in view of the provisions of rule 16.3 of the Police Rules, was incompetent. This point was also raised before the learned Judges, but they found it to be without any substance and were of the opinion that this was a fit case for being dealt with departmentally. It is noticed that the com petence of the departmental inquiry was not challenged before the officer holding the enquiry against the petitioner. However, rule 16.3 of the Police Rules, as rightly held by the learned Judges could not be a bar to the holding of a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The reason for this is that the petitioner was given only a benefit of doubt in the trial and was not honourably acquitted. The benefit of doubt was given to him as the trying Magistrate found the evidence of some witnesses to be discrepant in certain respects and was doubtful about the age of the girl alleged to have been kidnapped and raped. Apart from this two of the prosecution witnesses were apparently gained over or which they were declared hostile. On these facts, it cannot be said that rule 16.3 stood in the way of a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Learned counsel next submits that the Senior Superintendent of Police under whose order the departmental proceedings were started and who passed the order of dismissal was biased against the petitioner. It is, accordingly, contended that the bias of that officer vitiated the proceedings. This contention was repelled by the learned Judges of the High Court on sufficient reasons. There is no merit in this petition. The petition, is accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.