2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

C.Ms. Nos.189 and 190 of 2011 CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.

For the reasons recorded therein, the C.M. is allowed and the writ petition is restored to its original number. C.M. stands disposed of. Main Case This single order shall dispose of Writ Petition No.2530 of 2005 and Writ Petition 3147 of 2005, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioners are low grade civilian employees of CMT and SD Golra Depot. In the year 1997, a criminal case F.I.R. No.49 dated 21-5-1997 under sections 380/409, P.P.C. read with section 14 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered against the petitioners with an allegation against them, as that they were responsible for the theft of 419 Injection Nozzles.

3. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioners were arrested by the police and remained on physical remand for 14 days but during the investigation neither any recovery was effected from them rather police declared them innocent and case was cancelled by the learned Illaqa Magistrate on the basis of discharged report prepared by Investigating Officer.

4. Further contends that after discharge from the criminal case, the petitioners were reinstated in the service. Later-on surprisingly in a departmental inquiry the respondents imposed a fine of Rs.4,50,000 upon the petitioners and directed them that the above said fine shall be recovered/deducted from the petitioners at the rate of 1/3rd of their monthly salary on monthly basis and issued a receipt dated 1-6-2005 for the purpose thereof. Learned counsel avers that after acquittal from criminal case the petitioners are not liable to pay fine because it will amount to a double jeopardy which is not warranted under the law. Therefore, writ petitions be accepted, impugned order of imposing of fine of Rs.4,50,000 upon the petitioners be declared illegal, void ab initio, ineffective on the rights of petitioners and be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon 2006 SCMR 1005 SC titled Government of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Finance and others v. Asif Ali and others.

5. Conversely, learned Federal Law Officer has vehemently Opposed these writ petitions and contended that petitioners were employed in the store. During their being on duty, 419 Injection Nozzles were found missing. An inquiry was conducted by competent authority in which petitioners were found guilty and as a consequence the penalty of Rs.4,50,000 was imposed against them. Further contends that there is no bar that after acquittal from criminal case, departmental proceedings could not be initiated. Both these writ petitions are without merit, same be dismissed.

6. Arguments heard. Record perused.

7. It is fully established from the record that the petitioners were civil employees of CMT & SD Golra Depot and were deputed in the same premises from where the injection nozzles were removed. There is also no such evidence on the file that petitioners ever reported the deficiency of injection nozzles. Although the petitioners were discharged from the criminal case F.I.R. No.49 dated 21-5-1997 registered with Police Station Tarnol, Islamabad but thereafter the petitioners were found guilty during a departmental inquiry which was never assailed for quashment. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that after discharge from a criminal case they could not be penalized in a departmental inquiry, because it amounts to double jeopardy is misconceived as there is no bar that after acquittal from criminal case, department is restrained from conducing departmental inquiry or imposing a penalty. Because firstly the petitioners were not acquitted from criminal case on merit and secondly disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings cannot be termed as synonymous and interchangeable. 'Disciplinary proceedings' and 'criminal proceedings' are quite distinct from each other having altogether different characteristics and there is nothing common between the adjudicative forums by whom separate prescribed procedure and mechanism is followed for adjudication and both the forums have their own domain of jurisdiction. Decision of one forum would have no bearing on the decision of other forum in any manner whatsoever and it would be a misconceived notion to consider the acquittal in criminal trial as an embargo against disciplinary proceedings. Benefited from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases PLD 2002 SC 13 titled Arif Ghafoor v. Managing Director, H.M.C. Taxila and others and 2006 SCMR 1005 SC titled Government of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Finance and others v. Asif Ali and others.

8. Law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is distinguishable to the present circumstances of this case. Both these writ petitions are without any merit. Same are dismissed. S.A.K./J-11/L Petitions dismissed.