2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, J.

Succinctly, the petitioner joined the erstwhile Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (now Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd.) on 01.03.1984, as Extra Assistant Director. Later on, he was proceeded against under the provisions of the Removal From Service (Special Power) Ordinance, 2000 and upon conclusion of proceedings he was dismissed from service, on 07.01.2002. Aggrieved by his dismissal the petitioner filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad but without any success as the same was dismissed, on 29.04.2004. Thereafter, he tried his luck before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan by filing Civil Petition No.2652/2005 which was dismissed through order, dated 21.08.2006. Besides departmental proceedings, the petitioner was also indicted in a NAB Reference (ACR No.20/2004) wherein he was given clean chit by Accountability Court No.1, Lahore, through its judgment, dated 29.04.2013. After his acquittal the petitioner filed an application before the competent authority for his reinstatement in service. As the said application was not being decided he was constrained to file W.P. No.30293/2013. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court the application of the petitioner for reinstatement in service was dismissed, on 22.02.2014; hence this petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner has been acquitted of the charge of embezzlement he is entitled for reinstatement in service; that the Civil Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the apex Court of the country on the point of limitation, thus, merits of the case were not discussed and that as the petitioner remained confined in jail he could not file appeal before the apex Court of the country, in time. To fortify his contentions learned counsel has relied upon the case reported as Mian Ghulam Sarwar Samija v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan (2013 SCMR 714).

3. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent-Bank states that as the Bank has already assailed verdict of the Accountability Court, acquitting the petitioner, before this Court, his acquittal is inconsequential; that acquittal of the petitioner in criminal case is of no help to him as he was also proceeded against departmentally on the allegation of negligence, inefficiency and misconduct; that after decision of the matter by the apex Court of the country, instant petition is not maintainable and that though the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal case prior to decision by the Federal Service Tribunal but he did not opt to challenge the findings of said fora promptly. In support of his contentions learned counsel has relied upon the case reported as Nazir Ahmed v. Capital City Police Officer, Lahore and another (2011 SCMR 484).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while exercising his right of rebuttal, submits that since co-accused of the petitioner having similar allegations are serving the department the petitioner has been treated discriminately. To fortify his stance learned counsel has relied upon the case reported as Superintending Engineer GEPCO, Sialkot v. Muhammad Yousaf (2007 SCMR 537).

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the documents annexed with this petition as well as the case-law cited at the bar.

6. Admittedly, the Civil Petition filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Federal Service Tribunal has been dismissed by the apex Court of the country. In this scenario, any order passed by this Court would amount to re-open the matter already decided by the apex Court of the country. As the petitioner failed to get set aside his order regarding dismissal from service upto the apex Court of the country, he could not invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under the garb of a challenge to order passed by the competent authority whereby his application for reinstatement was dismissed as any order passed by this Court in violation of the order passed by the apex Court of the country would amount to pre-empt the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. As per Article 189 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, every verdict of the apex Country has binding force upon this Court.

7. Insofar as acquittal of the petitioner from NAB Reference is concerned, suffice it to note that the same hardly makes any difference as the judicial trial cannot be treated as substitute of departmental proceedings as held by the apex Court of the country in the cases reported as Khalid Aziz and another v. Government of the Punjab and others (2017 SCMR 21), Sami Ullah v. Inspector-General of Police and others (2006 SCMR 554) and Executive Engineer and others v. Zaid Sharif (2005 SCMR 824).

8. A perusal of the judgment rendered by the Accountability Court shows that the petitioner was indicted in NAB Reference on account of embezzlement whereas Charge Sheet, dated 31.08.2000, shows that departmentally he was proceeded against on account of negligence, inefficiency and misconduct. Had the petitioner been dismissed on account of his involvement in a criminal case then he was well within his rights to claim reinstatement in service after his acquittal from the said case. As the subject of both these matters was entirely different, the decision of one would have no bearing on the other.

9. The case-law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner being quite distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of instant case is of no help for the petitioner.

10. For what has been discussed above, instant petition has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. MH/M-69/L Petition dismissed.