2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JAVED IQBAL, J.

This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 28-2-2001 passed by learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed and order, dated 29-10-1995 whereby the petitioner was removed from service has been kept intact.

2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that petitioner was performing his duties as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at Police Station Manga, Saddar Division, Lahore when a criminal case under section 397, P.P.C.. was got registered by means of F.I.R. No.367 on 31-10-1994 with Police Station Gulberg Lahore on account of recovery of stolen car from his possession. Pursuant to the registration of criminal case and recovery of stolen car a show-cause notice was issued upon the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Saddar Division Lahore. The petitioner refuted the allegation and consequently inquiry was got conducted through the Superintendent of Police, Chung who after conducting the inquiry found the petitioner guilty of misconduct as the recovery of stolen car from the possession of petitioner was established. After completion for necessary formalities and affording an opportunity of personal hearing, major penalty, of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner by means of order, dated 29-10-1995. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred before D.I.G. Police Lahore Range which was rejected vide order, dated 3-7-1996 the revision petition filed on behalf of petitioner was also rejected by Inspector General of Police vide order, dated 1-7-1998. As a last resort the petitioner approached the Punjab Service Tribunal and his, appeal was also dismissed vide judgment impugned.

3. Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of petitioner and contended mainly that the petitioner was acquitted in criminal case got registered against him vide F.I.R. No. 367 by the Judicial Magistrate and therefore, no disciplinary proceedings could have been initiated on the same allegation and hence the penalty of removal from service could not have been imposed being unlawful and violative of the principles of natural justice and equity. It is also contended that a false and concocted case was got registered against him at the behest of some persons against whom various criminal cases were got registered by the, petitioner which aspect of the matter has been ignored by the department and learned Service Tribunal which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is also argued that the factum of possession of alleged stolen car could not be, proved by producing worthy of credence evidence.

4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of the petitioner in the light of record of the case. We have also perused the judgment impugned carefully. After having gone through the entire record we are not at all impressed by the prime contention or learned Advocate Supreme Court for petitioner that after acquittal from the Court of Judicial Magistrate the disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1975 which culminated into removal of service of the petitioner could not have been initiated for the reason that acquittal in a criminal case does not constitute a bar to initiate further disciplinary proceedings being independent in nature. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum as laid down in the following authorities:-- Dy. I.G. Police v. Anis-ur-Rehman Khan (PLD 1985 SC 134).; Muhammad Ayub v. Chairman, E.B. WAPDA (PLD 1987 SC 195); Muhammad Nazir v. Superintendent of Police (1990 SCMR 1556) and Talib Hussain v: Anar Gul Khan (1993 SCMR 2177) and Arif Ghafoor v. Managing Director (PLD 2002 SC 13).

5. It is worth mentioning that acquittal by the learned Judicial Magistrate was not on' merits but due to the non-production or prosecution evidence. Besides that the vehicle in question was not handed over to the petitioner but on the contrary its custody was restored to its original owner. The formalities as envisaged in the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1975 were adhered to strictly. The petitioner could not justify the retention of stolen car which was recovered from his possession. The learned Service Tribunal has dilated upon all the contentions and decided in a comprehensive manner reiterated before this Court in judgment impugned, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-- "(4) It is a matter of record that the appellant has not been acquitted in the criminal case on merit. The witnesses in whose presence the car was illegally recovered from the possession of the appellant were not produced before the Court. Any discrepancy in the Engine number of Chassis number is again immaterial unless the appellant had claimed the recovered car and proved it as his own. Even the Judicial Magistrate, while acquitting the appellant -has returned the car to its owner and not to the appellant. The Court has again not recorded any evidence to exclude the possibility of any tampering had been procured. On the other hand the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Chung clearly mentions such a tampering. This report clearly and unequivocally states that one Muhammad Ali was caught in a stolen car, and later an other stolen car was recovered from the possession of the appellant. The appellant has not been able to account for this car recovered from his possession notwithstanding any tampering with the engine or chassis number. There is again no evidence and not even any suggestion of any enmity between the police officials who recovered the stolen car from the possession of the appellant. In this view of the matter the departmental H authorities seem to be quite justified to believe the report of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chung even in the presence of judicial acquittal. The impugned order are thus unexceptionable."

6. The conclusion as drawn by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal being unexceptionable hardly warrants any interference. No question of law of public importance is involved in the matter. The petition is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./M-30/S Leave refused.