2015 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Mst. TARA BEGUM Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Home Secretary and 2 others
| Citation | 2015 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh High Court |
| Bench Members | Faisal Arab and Abdul Rasool Memon, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. TARA BEGUM Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Home Secretary and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2015 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh High Court bench comprising: Faisal Arab and Abdul Rasool Memon, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2015 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Mst. TARA BEGUM Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Home Secretary and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Mudasir Hussain Zaidi for Petitioner.
- Sibtain Mehmood, A.A.-G. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Criminal and departmental proceedings
Effect
Departmental action was taken against civil servant who was dismissed from service and departmental appeal was dismissed against which no appeal was filed
Criminal proceedings were also initiated against the civil servant wherein he was acquitted
Plea of petitioner (widow of deceased) was that civil servant should be symbolically restored in service and he might not be treated as a "dismissed employee"
Where disciplinary action was taken solely on the ground that civil servant was involved in criminal proceedings, criminal act would have no concern with the department
Order of dismissal was not justified after acquittal from criminal case in circumstances
Where criminal proceedings were initiated on the basis of misconduct and side-by-side departmental proceedings were also initiated on same grounds, mere acquittal in criminal case would not discharge an employee from the consequences of departmental proceedings
Outcome of criminal proceedings in such circumstances had no bearing on the departmental proceedings
Husband of petitioner after his dismissal from service, did not challenge the same before the Service Tribunal
Remedy of deceased employee was available only before the service tribunal which he did not avail
Dismissal order had attained finality
Present constitutional petition had been filed after five years from the death of employee by his widow which was not maintainable
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. 2007 SCMR 537; 2007 SCMR 729; 2002 SCMR 57 and 1991 SCMR 209 distinguished. 1995 SCMR 500 rel.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner is widow of late Abdul Waheed, who was an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Police Department. The departmental action was taken against him and he was dismissed from service vide order dated 3-8-2000. The departmental appeal was dismissed on 12-4-2005. Thereafter he did not challenge his dismissal order before the Service Tribunal. He died on 13-11-2008. On 21-1-2013, the present petition was filed by the widow of the deceased Assistant Sub-Inspector claiming that apart from the departmental proceedings criminal proceedings were also initiated against her husband wherein he was acquitted, therefore, he should be symbolically restored in service and may not be treated as a dismissed employee. Through this petition, the widow of the deceased also seeks salary and other benefits of the deceased. The counsel for the petitioner contends that once the deceased was acquitted from the criminal charge, the order of his dismissal from service based on such acquittal is a nullity in law and against such illegality no period of limitation applies. He also submitted that this is also a case of double jeopardy as the deceased was acquitted in criminal trial. The counsel for the petitioner was asked to read a passage from a case reported in 1995 SCMR
500. After reading such passage, the counsel for the petitioner concedes that this is not a case of double jeopardy but states that the order is a nullity against which no period of limitation is applicable. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the cases reported in 2007 SCMR 537, 2007 SCMR 729, 2002 SCMR 57 and 1991 SCMR 209, wherein disciplinary action was taken solely on the ground that civil servant was involved in criminal proceedings, the criminal act having no concern with the department. Obviously in such circumstance after his acquittal from criminal case the order of dismissal is not justified. These judgments, therefore, are distinguishable. Where criminal proceedings are initiated on the basis of misconduct and side by side departmental proceedings are also initiated on same grounds then mere acquittal in criminal case would not discharge an employee from the consequences of departmental proceedings. The outcome of the criminal proceedings in such circumstances has no bearing on the departmental proceedings. Apart from the principle laid down in the case reported in 1995 SCMR 500, the husband of the petitioner, after his dismissal from service in 2000, did not challenge the same before the Service Tribunal. He died in 2008 and after five years of his death, his widow filed the present petition. The remedy of the deceased was available only before the Service Tribunal which he admittedly did not avail and his dismissal order attained finality. In such eventuality the proceedings filed by his widow are on the face of it not maintainable. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. ZC/T-3/Sindh Petition dismissed.