1975 PLP 389 (SCMR)

Ahmad Saeed Kureshy, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by V. A. Kidwai, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent Date of hearing : 14th March 1975. MUHAMMAD GUL, J.‑This petition under Article 212 (3) of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Sind ‑Services Tribunal, dated 30‑9‑1974, refusing redress to the petitioner, in the circumstances set out below. The petitioner entered service under the former Province of West Pakistan and was appointed Additional City Magistrate, Karachi in September, 1959. After serving at various places as Magistrate, he was. posted as Section 30 Magistrate at Jhelum, when a criminal case under sections 354, 341 and 506, P. P. C. was registered against him and another, vide F. I. R. No. 441: dated 25‑12‑69 at P. S. Jhelum city. He was tried and sentenced by Summary Military Court to one year's R. 1. vide order dated 21‑5‑1970. As a result of the conviction, he was also dismissed from service in May 1972. The Province of West Pakistan, having been dissolved in the meantime and on a petition made in that behalf by the petitioner, the Governor Punjab, in exercise of powers under P. O. 14 of 11972, vide order dated 24‑2‑1973 granted pardon to the petitioner. As a sequel to the grant of pardon, the petitioner, claimed restoration to his service in the successor Province of Sind. This was refused by the Government, on the ground that he was unfit for future service. He filed an appeal under section 4 of the Sind Services Tribunal Act, 1973, and the position taken by the petitioner was that with the grant of pardon by the Governor Punjab, the dis qualification suffered by him as a result of his conviction by the Summary Military Court had automatically disappeared. The learned Sind Services. Tribunal, however, vide order dated 30‑9‑1974, took the view that with the grant of pardon only the sentence was remitted, the petitioner's conviction was not annulled. Against this order, the petitioner seeks leave to appeal. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on. Hay v. Justices of the Tower Division of London ((1890)24QBD561) in which the rule laid down was that the grant of "a free pardon under the Royal Sign‑manual" to a person convicted of felony and therefore, disqualified from selling spirits by retail shall remove such disqualification. In support of that proposition, learned counsel also relied upon American Jurisprudence Volume XXXIX, page

523. The petition, in our opinion raises a "substantial question of law of public importance" within the meanings of Article 212(3) of the Constitu tion. Accordingly, we grant leave. Security Rs. 1,000, Leave granted.