SCMR 2007

2007 SCMR 562 (PLP)

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, D.I. KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus IHSANULLAH — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition No.384-P of 2005, decided on 14th November, 2006.
Honorable Judges
Abdul Hameed Dogar and Mian Shakirullah Jan, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2007 SCMR 562 (PLP)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Abdul Hameed Dogar and Mian Shakirullah Jan, JJ
Parties SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, D.I. KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus IHSANULLAH — Respondent
Primary Law North-West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 SCMR 562 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: North-West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 SCMR 562 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hameed Dogar and Mian Shakirullah Jan, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 SCMR 562 (PLP) (SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, D.I. KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus IHSANULLAH — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

North-West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974)

Representation

  • Khushdil Khan, Additional Advocate-General N.-W.F.P. and Altai, S.-I. (Legal) for Petitioners.
  • Abdul Aziz Kundi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 10-5-2005 of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal Peshawar in Appeal No.180 of 2004).

S. 4

Dismissal from service on account of his arrest in a criminal case

Acquittal from criminal charges

Time-barred appeal

Civil servant was dismissed from service, after he was arrested in criminal case

Civil servant during his arrest, filed departmental representation but did not avail, remedy of appeal before Service Tribunal

Civil servant, after he was acquitted from criminal charge, filed appeal before Service Tribunal, which was accepted and he was reinstated in service

Validity

Appeal before Service Tribunal was filed belatedly from date of his dismissal and after five months from the date of his acquittal from criminal charges

Civil servant had lost his right and could not agitate for reinstatement

Acquittal of civil servant from criminal charges would have absolutely no bearing on merits of case as disciplinary proceedings were to be initiated according to service rules independently

Judgment passed by Service Tribunal, reinstating civil servant in service, after acquittal from the criminal charge was not sustainable in law

Supreme Court set aside the judgment passed by Service Tribunal and order of dismissal of civil servant from service was maintained

Appeal was allowed. Executive Engineer and others v. Zahid Sharif 2005 SCMR 824 and Sami Ullah v. Inspector-General of Police and others 2006 SCMR 554 ref.

Judgment & Decree

ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.

This petition is directed against judgment, dated 10-5-2005 passed by learned N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, camp at D.I. Khan whereby Appeal No.180 of 2004 filed by respondent was allowed and he was reinstated into service without back-benefits.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of instant petition are that respondent was dismissed from service on the allegation that on 12-7-2001 he was found in possession of 225 grams of Charas. Case was registered against him in which he was arrested and sent up to face the trial. According to learned counsel for the respondent he made representation to the competent authority but did avail the remedy of filing appeal before the learned Tribunal challenging his dismissal. According to him after his acquittal from the criminal case which took place on 9-10-2003 he filed instant appeal before Tribunal on 18-3-2004 mainly on the ground that he was acquitted from criminal charges as such be reinstated in service. The appeal before the Tribunal was filed belatedly from date of his dismissal and after five months from the date of his acquittal from the criminal charges. This being so, respondent has lost his right and cannot agitate for reinstatement. By now it is the settled principle of law that acquittal of civil servant from criminal charges would have absolutely no bearing on the merits of the case as the disciplinary proceedings are to be initiated according to service rules independently. Reliance can be made to the cases of Executive Engineer and others v. Zahid Sharif 2005 SCMR 824 wherein it has been held that acquittal of civil servant from Court would not impose any bar for initiation of disciplinary proceedings as his acquittal would have no bearing on disciplinary proceedings at all. In case of Sami Ullah v. Inspector-General of Police and others 2006 SCMR 554 it has been held that acquittal of petitioner from criminal case would have absolutely no bearing on the merits of the case and in the case of N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology v. Syed Ashfaq Hussain Shah 2006 SCMR 453 it has been held that departmental representation of civil servant was barred by limitation and on the basis of such representation Service Tribunal could not reinstate him in service.

3. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove and the case-law referred (supra) the impugned judgment reinstating the respondent in service after acquittal from the criminal charge is not sustainable in law hence the same is set aside. The petition is converted into appeal and allowed. The order of dismissal from service of respondent is maintained. M.H./S-81/SC Appeal allowed.