1983 PLP 160 (SCMR)
RANGE-Petitioner Versus ANTS-UR-REHMAN KHAN-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 160 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | --Art. 212-Whether Departmental Authority should wait for verdict of criminal Court before initiating departmental proceedings against a civil servant charged with criminal act-Held, substantial question of law of public importance raised-Leave to appeal granted.-Civil services. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RANGE-Petitioner Versus ANTS-UR-REHMAN KHAN-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 160 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 160 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the --Art. 212-Whether Departmental Authority should wait for verdict of criminal Court before initiating departmental proceedings against a civil servant charged with criminal act-Held, substantial question of law of public importance raised-Leave to appeal granted.-Civil services. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 160 (SCMR) (RANGE-Petitioner Versus ANTS-UR-REHMAN KHAN-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tanvir Ahmad, Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab and Sh. Ijaz Ali for Petitioner.
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 1st November, 1981.
- Tanvir Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab and Sh. Ijaz Ali for Petitioner.
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Mr. Tanvir Ahmad, learned Assistant Advocate‑General. argued that the acquittal in a Criminal Court is no bar to the maintainability of departmental proceedings and the view of the Tribunal that the verdict of the Criminal Court should have been awaited and the findings recorded by it which destroy the basis of the action taken against the respondents, are not in accordance with law. The result of such view would be that the departmental authorities would be restricted to take departmental action only in the case where Government servant is convicted by the Criminal Court which is not a correct view of the law.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 3rd July, 1981 of the Service Tribunal, Punjab, Lahore in Appeals Nos. 728/912 and 729/763). --Art. 212-Whether Departmental Authority should wait for verdict of criminal Court before initiating departmental proceedings against a civil servant charged with criminal act-Held, substantial question of law of public importance raised-Leave to appeal granted.-[Civil services].
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J. This order will govern Civil Petition No. 942/81. and Civil Petition No. 958 of 1981. Anis‑ur‑Rehman (Respondent in C. P. No. 942/81) and Muhammad Ashraf (Respondent in C. P. No. 958/81), who were Serving respectively as Inspector of Police and Assistant Sub‑Inspector of Police, were dismissed from service on the ground of grave misconduct. They filed appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal), which were accepted. Hence these petitions for leave to appeal. The Tribunal in accepting the appeals filed by the respondents was mainly influenced by the fact that the said respondents were tried before a Criminal Court on the same charges on which they have been dismissed, but the Criminal Court however, had exonerated them of the said charges and acquitt ed them. Consequently, there was no basis left for holding the respondents to be guilty. In fact, the department authorities should have waited for the judgment of the Criminal Court before rushing to take action against the respondents. Mr. Tanvir Ahmad, learned Assistant Advocate‑General. argued that the acquittal in a Criminal Court is no bar to the maintainability of departmental proceedings and the view of the Tribunal that the verdict of the Criminal Court should have been awaited and the findings recorded by it which destroy the basis of the action taken against the respondents, are not in accordance with law. The result of such view would be that the departmental authorities would be restricted to take departmental action only in the case where Government servant is convicted by the Criminal Court which is not a correct view of the law. The question inter alia does raise a substantial question of law of public importance. Leave is, accordingly, granted. The appeals to be made ready on the present record with leave to the parties to add further documents, if any. The interim stay to continue but the appeals to be made ready for bearing within six months. Leave granted.