1986 PLP 580 (PLC)

Muhammad Sadiq, Deputy District Attorney for Respondent. S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN, (CHAIRMAN). ‑Zawar Hussain, ex‑Constable No.522, has filed this appeal a/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintendent of Police, Bahawalnagar, D.I.G. of Police, Bahawalpur Range, Bahawalpur and I. G. of Police, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

3. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 22‑2‑1984, 9‑10‑1984 and 27‑3‑1985, be set aside and he be re‑instated in Service with effect from 22‑2‑1984, with full benefits of pay and allowances, etc.

3. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was serving as a Constable of Police Station Saddar, Bahawalnagar, he was involved in a criminal case vide F I R No. 441/82, under section 380/457 and 411, P.P.C, Police Station, Bahawalnagar. The appellant denied the allegations but as the case was registered against him he was challaned by the Court of Law. At the same time departmental proceedings were initiated against him through a show‑cause notice on the ground that he was involved in a theft case registered vide F I R mentioned above. The appellant denied the allegation yet a preliminary inquiry was held against him through A.S.P. (S)z who recorded the statements of three witnesses, Messrs Fateh Muhammad, Tariq Mahmud and Abdul Ghaffar. None of these witnesses deposed against the appellant, and even two witnesses went to the extent that they had been made to sign the blank papers by the Police, which were later on converted into recovery memo. However, the appellant was dismissed from service. As the departmental appeal Was rejected vide order, dated 9‑10‑1984, he filed Revision Petition, dated 17‑10‑1984, which has now been rejected by final order dated 27‑3‑1985. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been acquitted by the learned Magistrate, 1st Class Bahawalnagar, vide his judgment, dated 15‑9‑1984. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the competent authority in this case has ignored the judgment so given in his favour and also as the D.I.G. Police, by saying that he was challaned in a theft case, therefore, he had brought bad name in Police and is unfit for retention in service. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of Muhammad Sardar Khan v. Government of the Punjab delivered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, dated 20‑3‑1985. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the law on this point is now settled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan by holding that once au accused official is acquitted by a Court of Law the accused civil servant is to be re‑instated despite the fact the acquittal was honourable or not. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the acquittal has got no shades as the acquittal is an acquittal.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has supported the comments of the S.P. Bahawalpur and has submitted that the acquittal of the appellant was not honourable which happened due to resiling of witnesses who had been won‑over with the passage of time, therefore, the appellant does not deserve re‑instatement in service.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and would quote relevant passage from the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which is as under: -? "We are, therefore, of the view that the concept of honourable acquittal was unjustifiably imported by the learned Tribunal. In determining the question of the validity of the appellant's removal from service. The reliance on this Court's judgment in Government of West Pakistan v. Mian Muhammad Hayat (P L D 1976 S C 202) in so far as it related only to the question of pay during period of suspension, was inapt and irrelevant. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is allowed with costs and the impugned order of appellant's removal from service, dated 19‑4‑1977, shall be set aside, with the result that the appellant shall be reinstated in service with effect from the date the said order took effect."

8. In following the verdict of their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, we proceed to accept the appeal set aside the impugned orders and direct that the appellant be reinstated in service, from the date he was so dismissed. However, the period for which he remained out of service, will be treated as period without pay. There will be no order as to costs. Judgment be released to the parties. A. A.??? Appeal allowed.