2004 PLP 540 (SCMR)

ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.‑‑‑Petitioner Muhammad Iqbal Jafri seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 31‑1‑2003 passed by the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby Service Appeal No.23 of 2000 filed by him was dismissed and the order of his dismissal from service was maintained.

2. Relevant facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are that an Ex‑Civil Judge, 1st Class, was apprehended by the Customs Authorities at Heathrow Airport, London UK on 23‑8‑1987 and 1.4 Kg of heroin was found concealed in the false bottoms of his two suit‑cases. After completion of investigation, he was sent up to face trial before a Crown Court at Guildford and vide judgment dated 25‑7‑1988, he was found guilty and was convicted and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment and was also recommended for deportation. However, on appeal, the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 7‑3‑1990 by a Court of Appeal in Criminal Division of the Royal Courts of the Justice. Upon the receipt of above information the petitioner was suspended by the then Chief Justice of Lahore High Court, Lahore and a show‑cause notice was issued to him and was consequently dismissed from service in terms of Rule 19(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, vide order dated 21‑11‑1988.

3. After getting acquittal, the petitioner filed an application for his reinstatement in service with back‑benefits before the then Chief Justice of Lahore High Court and was reinstated in service on 15‑7‑1991. Whereafter, he was proceeded against departmentally and was again suspended on 6‑10‑1991 and vide a charge‑sheet dated 22‑1‑1992, he was called upon to answer the following charges:‑‑ (i) "During your short judicial career of even less than a decade, you thrice visited U.K. first in 1984 for setting some family matters, then in August/September, 1986 to see your ailing brother‑in‑law, and lastly in August, 1987 in connection with the marriage of your brother alongwith your parents, which you, as a junior officer, having meagre emoluments, could ill‑afford in the context of your known means of income and your claim that your foreign trips were financed by your relations, was only a ruse for indulging in the illicit trade of narcotics as the subsequent events indicated. (ii) As per your statement before the concerned Court in U.K. "you lived in a large house and engaged four servants" which an officer of your status could not afford. Thus either you made a false statement to save your skin or you were living beyond your known means of income. (iii) Your service record, inter alias reveals that you had the reputation of being corrupt and could go to any length while the statement of your brother‑in‑law Syed Azhar Ali recorded by the police during investigation of the case registered at the instance of your wife at Police Station Model Town, Lahore, indicated that you both had contacts with narcotics dealer Sh. Nasib Ahmed son of Sh. Muhammad Ali resident of Aaria Nagar, Islamia Park, Lahore, and in consonance with these traits you on the pretext of attending the marriage of your brother in U.K. who, in fact, stood already married there, fraudulently obtained ex‑Pakistan leave from 1‑9‑1987 to 15‑9‑1987 with a view to smuggle 2.883 Kg. of heroin and on 27‑8‑1987 you were caught red‑handed at Heathrow Airport, U.K. while smuggling it from Pakistan into U.K. (iv) That the widely circulated news of your arrest on 23‑8‑1987 at Heathrow Airport, U.K. by the media as smuggler of narcotics, despite being a judicial officer in Pakistan brought a bad name to the country and Pakistani Nation in general and to the Judiciary and Judicial Institutions in particular, making you unfit to hold a Judicial Office. (v) As it appears from the judgment of the British Appellate Court relied upon by you for your acquittal and consequent reinstatement in service, as also from the Press reports, after your apprehension as a suspect at Heathrow Airport, London, on 23‑8‑1987 by the British Custom Authorities, on the search of your person three baggage reclaim tags of suit‑cases, your accompanied baggage were found in your possession attached to your air ticket and you tried to swallow the same in order to destroy the evidence against you 'but the British Customs Authorities succeeded in getting the same spitted out from you on the floor in chewed up form and in this way you not only displayed a conduct of a seasoned criminal but also of unbecoming of as Officer and a gentleman. (vi) That as a result of the trial on the charge of smuggling of narcotics into U.K. you were convicted and sentenced .by Guilford Court; U.K. on 25‑7‑1988 but you obtained your acquittal on 7‑3‑1990 from the British Appellate Court on the basis of fabricated and inadmissible evidence which you managed to create in your favour in complicity with your wife, brother, brother‑in‑law and a personal servant, by getting the false case; F.I.R. No.5 of 1988 registered at Police Station Model Town, Lahore, against your brother‑in‑law and a personal servant and getting its investigation `carried out favourably and collusively from Sabir Hussain, S.‑I. with a view to produce the same in the British Courts in support of your false defence of being unaware of the concealed heroin in your attache‑cases and eventually succeeded in your designs by deceiving the British Appellate Court."

4. Finding the reply to the aforesaid charges unsatisfactory, a regular inquiry was initiated against the petitioner wherein on 22‑2‑1992, in reply to the statement of allegations. Except Charge No.2, all the remaining charges were proved against him during the inquiry and a major penalty of dismissal from service was recommended by the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter the competent authority issued him a final show‑cause notice and afforded him an opportunity of personal hearing and ultimately dismissed him from service with immediate effect vide notification dated 9‑7‑1998.

5. We have heard Mr. Talib H. Rizvi, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case in minute particulars.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that after the acquittal of the petitioner by the Court of Appeal in U.K. and consequent reinstatement in service, a full‑fledged departmental inquiry amounted to double jeopardy which was against the spirit of Article 13 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. .The second proceedings, therefore, on the same cause of action were not maintainable being coram non judice. He vehemently urged that the Inquiry Officer did not consider the evidence of the witnesses so much so that out of list of witnesses furnished by the Authorized Officer, no one was examined but Mr. Khalid Nazir, Superintendent, Confidential Branch and Sabir Hussain, S.‑I. were examined as witnesses, out of whorl, Sabir Hussain, S.‑I. was declared hostile by the Prosecutor. According to him, the entire report of the Inquiry Officer and the order of dismissal were not based on any cogent evidence but were based on the basis of the conviction awarded by the trial Court in U.K. which was subsequently quashed in appeal.

7. Adverting to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the departmental inquiry was not competent after the acquittal of delinquent officer/petitioner from the criminal charges by the competent Court of law, was without any foundation and merits no consideration. There is no bar to proceed departmentally against any civil servant as departmental disciplinary proceedings are entirely different from that of the criminal proceedings on criminal charges and are neither co‑extensive nor inter‑connected. Judicial trial is not a substitute for the departmental inquiry as it relates to the enforcement of criminal liability whereas the departmental proceedings are concerned to the service discipline and good order. The scope and the law applicable in both are different from each other, thus the competent authority was vested with the discretion to initiate the departmental inquiry through an Inquiry Officer without being influenced by the decision of the acquittal by the Court of Appeal. This aspect of the matter has been highlighted by t1fis Court in the cases of The Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Lahore and others v. Anis‑ur‑Rehman Khan PLD 1985 SC 134 and Amir Abdullah v Superintendent of Police and others1989 SCMR

333. Mere acquittal of the petitioner on the benefit of doubt from the Court or Appeal in U.K., the serious charges of drug trafficking and being apprehended at Heathrow Airport by the Customs officials cannot easily be brushed aside. Such act by a Judicial Officer has not only impaired the image of Pakistan Judiciary but has given bad name and reputation to our country and Pakistani nation.

8. Irrespective of above, the petitioner had earned adverse reports from 1‑1‑1986 to 31‑12‑1986 and from 1‑1‑1987 to 27‑8‑1987 by the then District and Sessions Judges whereby he was reported to be corrupt.

9. For what has been discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment is based on valid and sound reasons and is entirely in consonance with the law laid down by this Court. Neither, there is misreading, non‑reading of material evidence misconstruction of facts and law nor it involves any substantial legal question of public importance warranting interference by this Court.

10. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of any force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused. M.H./M‑3/S Petition dismissed.