2025 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD RAZA QURESHI, J.

Through this Writ Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the Petitioner, who applied for the post of Stenographer in Police Department (BS-15), has invoked jurisdiction of this Court by seeking indulgence against Order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Respondent No.2, Additional Inspector General, Punjab (Admin and Security) on behalf of Respondent No.1, Inspector General of Police, Punjab rejecting representation of the Petitioner for his consideration for the subject matter post.

2. It has been argued before this Court by learned counsel that the Petitioner applied for the subject matter post and cleared all tests including short-hand, typing test, interview and was successfully recommended by Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC). Thereafter, he was offered appointment through letter dated 30.01.2023, pursuant whereto the Petitioner himself disclosed that FIR bearing No. 849/2017 dated 27.12.2017 under sections 353, 186, 506 and 427, P.P.C. was lodged against him, however, vide Order dated 20.03.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Sahiwal, his application under section 249-A GOR.C was allowed and he was acquitted of the charge.

3. Thereafter, the police department proceeded with the matter and issued transfer/posting orders to other successful candidates, but the Petitioner was ousted from the contest due to his previous involvement in the aforesaid criminal case Being aggrieved, the Petitioner approached this Court through Constitutional Petition bearing No.32020 of 2023, which was disposed of vide Order dated 16.05.2023 directing Respondent No.1 to decide the Petitioner's application pending before him in this behalf.

4. Pursuant to Order dated 16.05.2023, his application was dismissed vide Order dated 23.10.2023. The Petitioner again approached this Court through Writ Petition No. 18597/2024 against the said Order and the Petition was disposed of by setting aside the Order dated 23.10.2023 and matter was remitted to the Respondent No.2 vide Order dated 21.05.2024 with a direction to provide hearing to the Petitioner as well as department and pass a speaking order justifying the points of law already determined by this Court. Finally, pursuant to Order dated 21.05.2024 passed by this Court, the Respondent No.2, through impugned Order dated 26.09.2024 has again rejected Application / representation of the Petitioner considering it devoid of any merit.

5. According to learned counsel, there is no allegation against the Petitioner that he ever concealed or withheld any material from the department and since the Petitioner much before the initiation of process of fresh recruitment for the subject matter post stood acquitted, therefore, he could not have been denied his fundamental right for consideration of his name for the subject matter post, especially when he was meritorious and was recommended by the PPSC. Adds that there is no other allegation against the Petitioner forming basis for his non-consideration for the subject matter post.

6. Conversely, learned Assistant Advocate General has entered appearance and relied upon Judgment passed in C.P No.4709/2019 titled "Zeeshan Ahmad v. Government of the Punjab through Inspector General of Police, Punjab Lahore and others" by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. wherein it was declared that subsequent acquittal and findings in respect thereof are not binding upon Police Department and a candidate can still be declared unfit for the subject matter post. Learned A.A.G has also relied upon Judgment dated 08.04.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5215/2021 titled "Hafiz Ali Raza v. Inspector General of Police and others" dismissing the petition and all connected matters relating to similar facts and circumstances. By relying upon Standing Order No.6 of 2015, learned A.A.G submits that it is a policy introduced by the department that the candidates who during the course of verification have been found involved in criminal cases either under trial or acquitted on multiple grounds shall not be appointed as Constable in Police Department, therefore, by supporting the Impugned Order. learned A.A.G argues that the instant Petition is meritless and same is liable to be rejected.

7. After hearing respective contentions of the parties. record has been perused and there appears to be a consensus as far as the factual aspect of the controversy is involved i.e. status of the Petitioner from the submission of application till his recommendation by PPSC. The sole controversy leading to solicit opinion of the Court is that once a candidate has been acquitted from that charge and there is no allegation of concealment of facts or withholding of information against him, can he still be declared debarred from his induction/recruitment in the Police Department on account of FIR from which, he stood acquitted? This question must be addressed in light of settled legal principles, including the presumption of innocence and the legal consequence of an acquittal as it is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that once an individual is acquitted, particularly through a clean acquittal based on merits rather than benefit of doubt then no stigma can be attached to his person. In the absence of a conviction or a finding of moral turpitude, and where no suppression of material facts is established, refusal of appointment solely on the basis of a past FIR would amount to denial of fundamental rights as mere registration of an FIR, followed by acquittal, does not per se constitute a valid ground to deny public employment. Legally speaking. unless there is a conviction, or unless the acquittal was based on compromise or technical grounds involving moral turpitude, the candidate's eligibility cannot be denied on such basis as an acquittal on merit restores the presumption of innocence and disqualifying a candidate without legal basis would amount to arbitrariness as it violates inviolable Constitutional rights protected by Articles 4, 9 and 18 of the Constitution.

8. A glance at the following policy, reflected through Standing Order bearing No.6 of 2015 is equally interesting for this Court to assess the legal position: "III) All those candidates who during character verification have been found involved in criminal cases (either under trial or acquitted on multiple grounds) shall not be appointed in Police Department as constable, in the light of instructions issued vide this Office Order No.SE-IV/7317-70/11, dated 26.06.2014. IV) All the candidates submit an affidavit for non-involvement in criminal cases at the time of submission of application form and if the case is registered against an applicant after the last date of submission of application form, but the applicant is not challaned and declared innocent; then that would not be ground for rejection of an applicant. However, DPO must examine that case is not cancelled or accused declared innocent due to compromise between parties in the light of para 23 of Standing Order No.06/2015 amended vide No.SE-III/1105-60/XV dated 01.06.2018." [Emphasis provided

9. It is noteworthy that questions of law reflected through. instant Petition also stand determined by this Court through Judgment dated 12.09.2023 passed in Writ Petition bearing No.50582/2022 titled "Syed Ali Hassan Naqvi v. Senior Superintendent of Police and others" and Judgment dated 17.10.2023 passed in 2024 PLC (C.S.) 826 titled "Syed Ali Raza Naqvi and others v. Chairman PPSC and others". The Judgment in the case of Syed Ali Hassan Naqvi supra stands upheld through Order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in I.C.A. No.75536 of 2023 titled "Province of Punjab and others v. Syed Ali Hassan Naqvi".

10. In the instant case, the FIR was lodged against accused persons including present Petitioner and report under section 9/7 of the Prosecution Act, 2006 reflected assessment that there were lesser chances of punishment in the case. The Magistrate, 1st Class through Order dated 20.03.2019 recorded reasons for acquittal of Petitioner by noticing that complainant of FIR namely, Shahid Mehmood ASI had already lodged a fake FIR against the deceased father of the accused and during departmental inquiry it appeared that the complainant Shahid Mehmood, ASI, malafidely, got the FIR lodged against the accused persons including the Petitioner and consequently, learned Magistrate recorded reasons for acquittal of the accused in the following terms: "Thus, the mala fide intention of the complainant towards the accused party is proved at departmental level, So, when the story of prosecution as narrated in the FIR is doubtful and malafide intentions of the complainant towards accused party is proved before the court from the documents submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners/accused during the arguments then there is no probability of the conviction of the accused persons in this case. Section 249-A, Cr.P.C empowers the Court to acquit the accused at any stage of the proceedings even before framing of charge if there is no probability of conviction of accused for the alleged offence. However, it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to afford opportunity to the prosecutor as well as accused persons to argue the merits of the case on the basis of material available with the prosecution and recording of prosecution evidence is not mandatory condition while passing the acquittal order under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. The wisdom and scheme provided under section 249-A, Cr.P.C is to save an innocent person from lengthy trial for the charges which are groundless and ultimately accused will be acquitted. Therefore, this court by keeping in mind the above said observation is of this opinion that there is no probability for the conviction of accused, hence, application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C is accepted and accused persons namely Muhammad Yaqub, Muhammad Mehboob. Shafqat Rasool, Mst. Sidra Bibi, Mst. Nida Bibi and Mst. Mehreen are hereby acquitted of the charge against them under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. They are on bail, therefore, sureties of the accused persons are discharged from their liabilities. Case property be dealt with in accordance with law. The file be consigned to the Record Room after its due completion/compilation." [Emphasis provided]

11. In such circumstances, the acquittal of the Petitioner was purely on merits as the Police being complainant had involved him malafidely. Under the law, the acquittal of an accused in a criminal case leaves no stigma on him especially when it stands proved that lodging of FIR was malicious and tainted. Clause IV of Standing Order clearly reflects that a candidate must submit an affidavit of his non-involvement in a criminal case at the time of submission of Application Form. In the instant case the Petitioner had submitted his affidavit that at the time of submission of Application Form, he was not involved in any criminal case and that deposition also contained the factum of acquittal from previous FIR.

12. The second ingredient contained in Standing Order is equally important i.e. if applicant has not been challaned and declared innocent then that would not be a ground for rejection of his application and DPO concerned must examine that the case is not cancelled or accused has not been declared innocent due to compromise between the parties. In the instant case, the Petitioner was acquitted on merits of the case and therefore, his case clearly fell within the ambit and scope of Judgment passed in Syed Ali Hassan Naqvi case supra.

13. As to the reliance placed by learned A.A.G. on Zeeshan Ahmad (supra), suffice is to observe that the facts of that case are completely distinct and materially inapposite. In the said case, the candidate had deliberately failed to disclose his involvement in a pending criminal case while submitting his application, leading the Hon'ble Supreme Court to hold that such non-disclosure amounted to a concealment of material facts, rendering him ipso facto, unfit for consideration by the Police Department. Here, by contrast, no concealment or misrepresentation of material facts is pleaded, nor is any allegation of fraudulent intent advanced. The learned A.A.G.'s reliance on the said precedent is, therefore, inapposite. The case of Zeeshan Ahmad turns on deliberate non-disclosure in an official application, a circumstance entirely absent in the present proceedings. Hence, the rationale and outcome of Zeeshan Ahmad cannot be extended to undermine the petition.

14. In the present case it was patently unsafe and legally unjust for the impugned Order to subject the Petitioner to the wriggles of Standing Order. The impugned Order suffers from a glaring misapplication of law and a failure to appreciate the factual matrix of the case, It was wholly unsafe, arbitrary, and legally untenable to subject the Petitioner to the adverse consequences under the garb of Standing Order, particularly when his acquittal under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. had already attained finality. The categorical view taken by the learned Magistrate, who found the case against the Petitioner to be devoid of substance, ought to have been given due judicial and administrative weight. It is a settled principle that policies must be applied with reference to the facts of each individual case, and cannot override judicial determinations of acquittal. especially when based on merit. The instant case is a classic example where mechanical application of policy has led to manifest injustice. The FIR registered against the Petitioner was not only based on false allegations but also promptly discredited during departmental proceedings. It stood established on record that the complainant of the FIR, namely Shahid Mehmood, ASI, had maliciously and recklessly attributed false allegations against the Petitioner and others in an attempt to falsely implicate them. The departmental inquiry conducted thereafter confirmed the misconduct and mala fides on part of the said complainant. In view of the above, the acquittal of the Petitioner under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. was not a mere technical discharge, but a judicial finding based on a complete lack of evidence and false implication, meriting full exoneration. Consequently, the rejection of the Petitioner's representation by relying upon a policy, without any application of mind to the exonerating circumstances and judicial record, is not only arbitrary and discriminatory, but also violative of settled principles of administrative justice and fairness. Such action, being inconsistent with the dictates of due process, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

15. Consequently, instant Petition is allowed and Impugned Order dated 26.09.2024 is set aside. The Respondent, Police Department is directed to proceed further with the appointment process of the Petitioner in accordance with law. MH/M-158/L Petition allowed.