2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.

The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment, dated 4-11-2002, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No.62(R)/CE of 2002.

2. The petitioner was appointed as an Upper Division Clerk in Regional Directorate of National Savings, Peshawar, by order, dated 31-11-1981. He was proceeded against under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. He was issued a charge-sheet, dated 19-10-1985 on the charges of misconduct and inefficiency. As a result of inquiry, he was dismissed from service by the departmental authority, by order, dated 31-12-1986. His departmental appeal was also rejected by the Appellate Authority on 4-5-1987. Simultaneously, criminal cases against the petitioner and others were also registered with the local police and the F.I.A. in which the petitioner was prosecuted and was convicted by the Special Judge, (Central), Peshawar. However, on appeal, the petitioner was acquitted by the High Court, by judgment, dated 18-3-2002. Thereafter, he filed another departmental appeal/review petition on 30-4-2002 which was rejected on 21-6-2002. Therefore, he filed Appeal No.62(R)/CE of 2002 which was dismissed by the Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, dated 4-11-2002. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that after acquittal of the petitioner by the High Court on the same charge, there was no justification for the Tribunal to uphold the departmental penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from service. The learned counsel relied on the cases of Attaullah Sheikh v. WAPDA and others 2001 PLC (C.S.) 316, Dr. Muhammad Islam, Instructor, Animal Husbandry in-Service Training Institute, Daudzai, Peshawar District v. Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, Food, Agriculture, Livestock and Cooperative Department, Peshawar and 2 others 1998 PLC (C.S.) 1430 and Gordhandas v. Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) and another 1989 SCMR 14.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. In our view, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner did not have much force. It is now well-settled that acquittal in a criminal case does not bar the departmental action against a delinquent official as both the proceedings are distinct and independent of each other. See the cases of Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and others v. Muhammad Tariq 2001 SCMR 789, Mir Nawaz Khan v. Federal Government through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others 1996 SCMR 315, Muhammad Ayub v. The Chairman, Electricity Board, WAPDA, Peshawar PLD 1987 SC 195 and The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore and others v. Anis-ur-Rehman Khan PLD 1985 SC

134. The precedent cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner primarily involved the question of honourable acquittal or otherwise from a criminal charge. The view taken by the Tribunal is plainly correct which does not warrant interference by this Court. This petition does not involve any substantial question of law of public importance.

5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition, which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. H.B.T./S-74/SC Petition dismissed.