1994 PLP 1608 (SCMR)

SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J: ‑‑Vide letter dated 15‑3‑1977, Assistant Director F.I.A. informed respondent herein that their employee, who is petitioner before us, was arrested and committed to jail custody for indulging in criminal misconduct by preparing and issuing forged educational certificates and domiciles. On 23‑4‑1978 he was charge‑sheeted for submitting to the respondent Corporation forged documents including Matric certificates and papers indicating false age and also showing that he had qualified for librarianship examination. Inquiry proceedings in the Corporation and criminal case in the competent Court proceeded and went along side by side. Meanwhile petitioner challenged issue of Charge‑sheet in the enquiry proceedings by the respondent by filing a civil suit, in which plaint was rejected for want of jurisdiction and in that connection it was held by the High Court and Supreme Court that suit was not maintainable and proper remedy for the petitioner was to file application under section 25‑A of I.R.O. Since there was no stay order from the Court, inquiry proceedings concluded resulting in dismissal of the petitioner on 20‑12‑1978 for the reason that charges stood proved. Feeling aggrieved against the dismissal, petitioner approached but without success, Labour Court, Labour Appellate Tribunal, and High Court and their concurrent finding is positive that he furnished information to the respondent, which was incorrect and false. Not satisfied petitioner tried his luck in the Supreme Court but leave was refused and his petition was dismissed. This is the third time that petitioner has approached this Court but now on the ground that after his acquittal in the criminal case by the trial Court, he submitted application to the respondent for reinstatement in service but his request was rejected. He filed grievance petition in the Labour Court, which was dismissed on the ground that order of dismissal passed by the respondent, unaffected by the result of the criminal case attained finality with decision of the Supreme Court, hence the grievance petition was hit by res judicata and limitation. After dismissal of appeal, petitioner filed Constitutional petition, which has been dismissed in limine by the High Court. We are unable to find any flaw or legal infirmity with the fording of the High Court that petitioner has already exhausted his remedies upto the Supreme Court, while challenging his order of dismissal passed in enquiry proceedings, which he can not re‑agitate on any fresh ground like acquittal m criminal case. We have perused the judgment of trial Court in the criminal case, which shows that finding of acquittal is recorded inter alia for reasons of lack of corroboration to the statement of Investigation Officer and non examination of five witnesses including mashirs in whose presence document Exhs. 40 to 43 and 75 to 79 were recovered. In any case the correct legal position in this context is that inquiry proceedings and criminal case can go on side by side and finding in inquiry proceedings can survive without being affected by finding of acquittal in the criminal case. No ground for interference is made out, hence leave is refused and this petition is dismissed. AA./M‑2053/S Leave refused.