1984 PLP 788 (SCMR)

M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑The point raised in this petition is whether upon the grant of pardon under section 143, of the Pakistan Army Act, the petitioner was entitled to re‑instatement in service.

2. The point arises in the following circumstance. The petitioner, who had joined as Inspector of Police in Baluchistan, on 26‑11‑1977, and was receiving training at Sihala Police Training School, was arrested on 1‑6‑1978 in connection with two cases, namely, F. I. R. No. 231, dated 13‑5‑1978 of P. S. Gulberg, Lahore, for being found in possession of stolen goods relating to the Shabnam dacoity case and (2) F. I. R. No. 67, dated 1‑6‑1978 of P. S. ‑ Rawat, Rawalpindi, for being in possession of unlicensed fire‑arm. In the second case, which was tried by the Summary Military Court, Rawal pindi, he was "honorably acquitted" but in the first case he was convicted and sentenced by a Military Court to R I. for ten years. On his representa tion, first the un-expired period of the sentence was remitted by the Matrial Law Administrator, Zone 'A', and next, on a mercy petition filed by the petitioner's father, he was "granted pardon" on 19‑7‑1981. On this basis, the Inspector‑General of Police, Baluchistan, was asked by the Martial Law Administrator, Zone 'A' Headquarter, that he may proceed to re‑instate him as per service rules. He was, however, not reinstated, whereupon he filed an appeal in the Department but the same was rejected. He then moved the Baluchistan Service Tribunal but his appeal there, too, was dismissed by order dated 8‑10‑1983 which is now impugned before us.

3. Learned counsel has referred us to section 152 of the Pakistan Army Act and to rule 16'3 of the Police Rules, 1934, to urge that in view of the grant of pardon, no departmental action was warranted and as such the petitioner was entitled to re‑instatement. Section 125 of the Army Act relates to the punishment of dismissal awarded by a Court martial and as such is not attracted. Rule 16'3 of the Police Rules bars subject to certain conditions departmental punishment on the same charge upon which the police officer is acquitted by a Criminal Court.

4. On the question of the effect of pardon, this Court had in Muhammad Asghar v. Government of Sind (P L D 1977 SC 212) declared that a free pardon does not restore convicted person to public office forfeited by or in consequence of conviction, though it may remove disability for a fresh grant or employment. Learned counsel vainly sought to distinguish this authority upon the submission that in the cited case the pardon had been granted by the Governor and that there bad been no direction for reinstatement whereas in the present such direction had been issued. Learned counsel could not deny that on 24‑2‑1973 when the Governor in the cited case had granted pardon, he was possessed of the powers as a Zonal Martial Law Administrator. It is also not correct that in the present case a direction had been given to re‑instate the petitioner, for, all that had been said in the letter dated 19‑7‑1971 was that the Inspector‑General of Police "may proceed with the matter of his re instatement as per service rules".

5. We thus find no force in this petition and accordingly refuse leave to appeal. S. Q. Leave refused.