SCMR 2004

2004 PLP 641 (SCMR)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, HYDERABAD and others — Petitioners Versus IQBAL AHMAD and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 662-K and 663-K of 2001 decided on 28th November, 2001.
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2004 PLP 641 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members N/A
Parties SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, HYDERABAD and others — Petitioners Versus IQBAL AHMAD and another — Respondents
Primary Law JUDGMENT, Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, 5. We have considered the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate-General and minutely gone through the material available on record. Admittedly, the respondents were dismissed from service by the S.S.P. Hyderabad on the allegations that they were involved and arrested in Criminal Case No.121 of 1994 registered under sections 395/396, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Latifabau "A" Section. Their departmental appeals were dismissed by the higher forums. Subsequently, the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 30-4-1998, acquitted the respondents holding that the case against them was not proved. The respondents produced a certified copy of the aforesaid judgment before the D.I.G. Hyderabad as well as the I.G. Police Sindh, but the same was not considered by them. In this context it would be advantageous to reproduce here the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 641 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: JUDGMENT, Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, 5. We have considered the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate-General and minutely gone through the material available on record. Admittedly, the respondents were dismissed from service by the S.S.P. Hyderabad on the allegations that they were involved and arrested in Criminal Case No.121 of 1994 registered under sections 395/396, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Latifabau "A" Section. Their departmental appeals were dismissed by the higher forums. Subsequently, the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 30-4-1998, acquitted the respondents holding that the case against them was not proved. The respondents produced a certified copy of the aforesaid judgment before the D.I.G. Hyderabad as well as the I.G. Police Sindh, but the same was not considered by them. In this context it would be advantageous to reproduce here the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under: as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 641 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 641 (SCMR) (SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, HYDERABAD and others — Petitioners Versus IQBAL AHMAD and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

JUDGMENT Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 5. We have considered the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate-General and minutely gone through the material available on record. Admittedly, the respondents were dismissed from service by the S.S.P. Hyderabad on the allegations that they were involved and arrested in Criminal Case No.121 of 1994 registered under sections 395/396, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Latifabau "A" Section. Their departmental appeals were dismissed by the higher forums. Subsequently, the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 30-4-1998, acquitted the respondents holding that the case against them was not proved. The respondents produced a certified copy of the aforesaid judgment before the D.I.G. Hyderabad as well as the I.G. Police Sindh, but the same was not considered by them. In this context it would be advantageous to reproduce here the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:

Representation

  • Suleman Habibullah, Additional Advocate-General, Sindh and Akhlaq A. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
  • Date of hearing: 28th November, 2001.
  • 4. Mr. Suleman Habibullah, learned Additional Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, inter alia, contended that impugned judgment is against law and facts and is not maintainable and that before the Tribunal, Provincial Government of Sindh was not impleaded as a party.
  • 5. We have considered the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate-General and minutely gone through the material available on record. Admittedly, the respondents were dismissed from service by the S.S.P. Hyderabad on the allegations that they were involved and arrested in Criminal Case No.121 of 1994 registered under sections 395/396, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Latifabau "A" Section. Their departmental appeals were dismissed by the higher forums. Subsequently, the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 30-4-1998, acquitted the respondents holding that the case against them was not proved. The respondents produced a certified copy of the aforesaid judgment before the D.I.G. Hyderabad as well as the I.G. Police Sindh, but the same was not considered by them. In this context it would be advantageous to reproduce here the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:--

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, at Karachi, dated 12-6-2001, passed in Appeals Nos. 99 and 100 of 1999).

R.4(b)(iv)

Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), S.4-- Co:istitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)

Dismissal of civil servant, a police official, from service for involvement and arrest in criminal case

Departmental appeal to Deputy Inspector-General of Police was dismissed in June/July, 1997

Civil servant after his acquittal through judgment dated 30-4-1998 produced its copy before Inspector General of Police, who dismissed his review application in February/March, 1999

Service Tribunal accepted appeal of civil servant

Validity

Police Authorities had not given weight to acquittal order of civil servant passed by Court of competent jurisdiction-- Impugned judgment was well-reasoned and in accordance with principles laid by Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused. SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.

By this consolidated judgment we intend to dispose of the above mentioned petitions, which are directed against a common judgment, dated 12-6-2001 of the Sindh Service Tribunal, at Karachi, passed in Appeals Nos. 99 and 100 of 1999.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners who were constables and posted at Police Station Latifabad "A" Section, Hyderabad, were served with show-cause notice dated 23-10-1994, separately; by the S.S.P. Hyderabad, on the allegations that they were involved and arrested in Criminal Case No. 121 of 1994 under sections 395 and 396, P.P.C. The respondents submitted their replies but vide two separate orders dated 6-11-1994 they were dismissed from service by S.S.P. Hyderabad. Their departmental appeals to D.I.G. Police were rejected on- 9-6-1997 and 25-7-1998, respectively. Also, their review applications were turned down by the I.G. Police, Sindh vide orders dated 10-2-1999 and 10-3-1999.

3. Thereafter the respondents filed appeals before the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi, which were accepted vide impugned judgment dated 12-6-2001. Hence, these petitions by the Department.

4. Mr. Suleman Habibullah, learned Additional Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, inter alia, contended that impugned judgment is against law and facts and is not maintainable and that before the Tribunal, Provincial Government of Sindh was not impleaded as a party. "The learned A.A.-G. very candidly concedes that the Authority concerned while passing the impugned order failed to consider the legal and factual aspects of the acquittal of the appellants from the criminal case. He signifies his no objections if the appeals allowed to the extent of reinstatement of appellants in service subject to the relinquishment of back benefits."

6. The higher police authorities did not give weight to the acquittal order of the respondents passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction inasmuch as there was no other charge or show-cause notice against the respondents. Keeping in view the circumstances, the Tribunal had considered the case in its proper perspective. The impugned judgment is well-reasoned and in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court.

7. For the foregoing reasons, these petitions are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. S.A.K./S-319/S Leave refused

Judgment & Decree

SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.

By this consolidated judgment we intend to dispose of the above mentioned petitions, which are directed against a common judgment, dated 12-6-2001 of the Sindh Service Tribunal, at Karachi, passed in Appeals Nos. 99 and 100 of 1999.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners who were constables and posted at Police Station Latifabad "A" Section, Hyderabad, were served with show-cause notice dated 23-10-1994, separately; by the S.S.P. Hyderabad, on the allegations that they were involved and arrested in Criminal Case No. 121 of 1994 under sections 395 and 396, P.P.C. The respondents submitted their replies but vide two separate orders dated 6-11-1994 they were dismissed from service by S.S.P. Hyderabad. Their departmental appeals to D.I.G. Police were rejected on- 9-6-1997 and 25-7-1998, respectively. Also, their review applications were turned down by the I.G. Police, Sindh vide orders dated 10-2-1999 and 10-3-1999.

3. Thereafter the respondents filed appeals before the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi, which were accepted vide impugned judgment dated 12-6-2001. Hence, these petitions by the Department.

4. Mr. Suleman Habibullah, learned Additional Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, inter alia, contended that impugned judgment is against law and facts and is not maintainable and that before the Tribunal, Provincial Government of Sindh was not impleaded as a party.

5. We have considered the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate-General and minutely gone through the material available on record. Admittedly, the respondents were dismissed from service by the S.S.P. Hyderabad on the allegations that they were involved and arrested in Criminal Case No.121 of 1994 registered under sections 395/396, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Latifabau "A" Section. Their departmental appeals were dismissed by the higher forums. Subsequently, the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 30-4-1998, acquitted the respondents holding that the case against them was not proved. The respondents produced a certified copy of the aforesaid judgment before the D.I.G. Hyderabad as well as the I.G. Police Sindh, but the same was not considered by them. In this context it would be advantageous to reproduce here the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:-- "The learned A.A.-G. very candidly concedes that the Authority concerned while passing the impugned order failed to consider the legal and factual aspects of the acquittal of the appellants from the criminal case. He signifies his no objections if the appeals allowed to the extent of reinstatement of appellants in service subject to the relinquishment of back benefits."

6. The higher police authorities did not give weight to the acquittal order of the respondents passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction inasmuch as there was no other charge or show-cause notice against the respondents. Keeping in view the circumstances, the Tribunal had considered the case in its proper perspective. The impugned judgment is well-reasoned and in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court.

7. For the foregoing reasons, these petitions are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. S.A.K./S-319/S Leave refused