2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.

This petition for leave to appeal, under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is directed against a judgment dated 28-4-2007, of the N.-W.F.P Service Tribunal, Peshawar, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby, Service Appeal No.601 of 2006, filed by the petitioner, assailing his termination order dated 12-7-2004, was dismissed.

2. Facts of the case necessary for disposal of this petition are, that Liaqat Ali, petitioner, while working as Laboratory Attendant in Government Children Hospital, Peshawar, was served with charge-sheet for his involvement in a criminal case and wilful absence from duty with effect from 16-10-2003. Departmental proceedings culminated into petitioner's termination from service vide order dated 12-7-2004. The petitioner, after earning acquittal under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. vide order dated 10-5-2005 of learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Peshawar Division, Peshawar, filed departmental appeal seeking reinstatement in service and, on its rejection approached learned Tribunal by filing appeal, which has also been dismissed through the judgment impugned herein.

3. Mr. Roohul Amin Khan, Advocate for the petitioner, contended that the sole charge against the petitioner forming basis of his termination from service was involvement of the petitioner in a case; that this very basis was knocked out by the order of acquittal which shows that the case was concocted and ill-motivated; that order of learned trial Judge leaves no slur on the conduct of the petitioner and rather shows that he was falsely implicated in this case, that absence of the petitioner from duty was beyond his control and not intentional or deliberate; that no regular inquiry was conducted to probe into the matter as required under the law and that the impugned judgment suffers from legal and factual infirmities and cannot be allowed to remain intact. To substantiate the contentions, reliance was placed on Rashid Mehmood v. Additional Inspector-General of Police and 2 others 2002 SCMR 57.

4. A perusal of the record would reveal that a case was registered against the petitioner and others at Police Station Chamkkani, Peshawar, vide F.I.R. No.677 dated 16-10-2003 under sections 365/365-A/ 347/377, P.P.C. read with section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 on the allegations of having, on 2-10-2003, kidnapped Shujjat Ali, aged about 12/13 years son of Shaukat Ali, complainant, for extracting ransom from the complainant. The petitioner and co-accused were also alleged to have subjected the victim to their unnatural lust. The petitioner absconded and remained fugitive from law from 4-11-2003, till passing the order of his termination from service. The department issued notices to the petitioner to assume duty but he neither did so nor responded to any departmental letter. Adverting to the question of non-holding of regular inquiry, it is true that no regular inquiry was conducted in this case to probe into the matter but it is equally true that involvement of the petitioner in criminal case and his wilful absence from duty were never denied by the petitioner. In the circumstances non-holding of regular inquiry in no way has caused any prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner has been dealt with fairly and terminated by the competent authority after completing all codal formalities. The ruling citied on behalf of the petitioner is distinguishable and proceeds on different facts. It is of no help to the petitioner. It has also been held by this Court that the acquittal order from criminal case, will not, per se, absolve the civil servant of his departmental liability as departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are not inter-dependent. In this respect reference can be made to Khaliq Dad v. Inspector-General of Police and 2 others 2004 SCMR 192 wherein it was observed:

"that the initiation of disciplinary action and criminal proceedings are not inter-dependent which could have been initiated simultaneously and brought to their logical end separately with different conclusions." It was also held in Government of N.-W.F.P through Secretary, Finance, Excise and Taxation Department, Peshawar and 2 others v. Aurangzeb 2003 SCMR 338:-- "that the petitioner cannot be allowed to take premium of his abscondence in a criminal case and to use it as a ground for absence from his official duty. He remained fugitive from law and Courts and remained in hiding himself for a long time and never applied for leave despite notices, therefore, his absence without leave was sufficient ground for his removal from service."

5. In the circumstances, we find that learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment has discussed the matter in depth and assigned cogent and sound reasoning before arriving at the conclusion. Neither any misreading or non-reading of the material on file could be pointed out in the impugned judgment, justifying interference by this Court. Even otherwise, no substantial question of law of public importance is involved in the present case.

6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave refused. M.H./L-3/SC Leave refused.