2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
NAHEED IQBAL Versus PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICER, SINDH, KARACHI and others
| Citation | 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Justice (Retd.) Abdul Ghani Shaikh, Chairman, Muhammad Ayub Shaikh, Member-I and Moula Bux Khatana, Member-II |
| Parties | NAHEED IQBAL Versus PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICER, SINDH, KARACHI and others |
| Primary Law | Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh Service Tribunal bench comprising: Justice (Retd.) Abdul Ghani Shaikh, Chairman, Muhammad Ayub Shaikh, Member-I and Moula Bux Khatana, Member-II.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (NAHEED IQBAL Versus PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICER, SINDH, KARACHI and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irfan Mir Halepota for Appellant.
- Muhammad Qasirn Mirjat, Asstt.A.-G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd February, 2006.
Headnotes / Summary
R. 4(1)(b)(iv) -Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), S.4--Dismissal from service
Appeal--Sole basis for awarding major penalty of dismissal from service to appellant was his involvement and arrest in a criminal case, which had already ended in his acquittal
No Departmental inquiry was conducted against appellant in respect of said criminal charge
On appellant's departmental appeal an inquiry was conducted in which appellant was exonerated
Nothing was available, in circumstances, against the appellant
Acquittal judgment as well as Inquiry report were not considered-Effect-Acquittal judgment, under the law, must be given due consideration in absence of Departmental inquiry
Impugned Appellate order was set aside and matter was remanded for passing speaking order within specified period after taking into consideration acquittal judgment passed in favour of appellant so also the findings of Inquiry Officer
Appellant's departmental 'appeal was deemed to be pending.
Judgment & Decree
JUSTICE (RETD.) ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH (CHAIRMAN).--By our short order dated 3-2-2006, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to respondent No.2, for the reasons to be recorded later-on. These are our reasons;
2. Appellant on account of his involvement in Criminal Case No.25/1999 under S. 395, P.P.C. registered at P.S. Brigade, Karachi, was proceeded against departmentally and was dismissed from service vide order dated 23-10-1999 passed by the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Karachi-East. Feeling dis-satisfied, appellant preferred departmental appeal to the then Deputy Inspector General of Police, Karachi on 8-2-2000, which was forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Karachi for comments and inquiry. An inquiry was also got conducted through D.S.P., who in his report exonerated the appellant. Meanwhile, appellant vide judgment dated 25-7-2003 was acquitted from criminal case by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-East. The copy of said acquittal judgment as per appellant was also supplied to the respondent No.2. However, as it appears, neither the finding of the inquiry officer nor the acquittal judgment passed in favour of the appellant was considered and his departmental appeal was rejected by order dated 22-5-2004.
3. Admittedly, the sole basis for awarding major penalty to appellant was his involvement and arrest in a criminal case, which has already ended in acquittal. No departmental inquiry was conducted against the appellant in respect of the said criminal charge. On appellant's departmental appeal, an inquiry was conducted by one D.S.P., who exonerated the appellant. There was thus nothing against the appellant. However, for the reasons best known to the respondent No.2 the acquittal judgment, as well as the inquiry report were not considered. Under the law acquittal judgment must be given due consideration in absence of departmental inquiry.
4. Accordingly, the impugned appellate order dated 22-5-2004 passed by respondent No.2 is set aside and matter is remanded to him for passing fresh speaking order within 60 days period after taking into consideration the acquittal judgment passed in favour of appellant so also the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The appellant's departmental appeal deemed to be pending. No order as to costs.
5. Given under our hand and seal of the Tribunal this 18th day of February. H.B.T./12/KST Order accordingly.