Copyright brecorder
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan declared that the acquittal of the civil servant in the criminal case removes the very substratum of the departmental charge. A two-judge bench, comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Abbasi, ruled that in an appeal against the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, order dated 16.05.2024. The bench set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and ordered the District Police Officer, Gujrat, and ordered to reinstate the petitioner [Police Constable (BPS-07)] into service. The judgment, authored by Justice Mansoor, said that the disciplinary machinery cannot stand on its own in such circumstances because there exists no stand-alone allegation that the department can independently inquire into or establish through departmental evidence. The charge of “involvement in a criminal case” is, by its very nature, incapable of departmental proof - it belongs exclusively to the criminal forum. Once the criminal court has adjudged the civil servant not guilty on the same accusation, the departmental authority is left with nothing to determine; the entire charge falls to the ground. The judgment also stated that any further attempt to proceed would not only be redundant but would also transgress the boundaries of fairness and legality. It would offend the broader constitutional guarantee of due process and fair trial under Article 10A, which requires that no one be condemned without credible evidence, impartial inquiry, and a meaningful opportunity of defence. A departmental action that, despite acquittal, persists in holding the civil servant liable for mere involvement in a criminal case is founded not on evidence but on conjecture and subjective notions of ideal conduct. Such proceedings violate the constitutional matrix of rights that shield every citizen from arbitrary and oppressive state action. The denial of due process under Article 10A necessarily infringes the right to dignity under Article 14 and the right to livelihood, an inseparable facet of the right to life under Article 9. These interlocking guarantees collectively ensure that public employment, though subject to discipline, remains protected by constitutional fairness and human dignity. To sum up, the jurisprudence, therefore, draws a clear and categorical distinction: Where departmental proceedings rest on independent and probe-able evidence of misconduct, an acquittal in the criminal case does not absolve the employee, and both proceedings may lawfully run concurrently. However, where the departmental action is founded solely on the registration or pendency of an FIR, without any distinct charge of misconduct, the employee’s subsequent acquittal extinguishes that foundation, rendering any ensuing penalty legally untenable and constitutionally infirm. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner (Ghulam Murtaza), serving as a Police Constable (BPS-07), was implicated in a criminal case bearing FIR No. 722/2021 dated 08.01.2021, registered under Sections 302, 311, 147, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Civil Lines, Gujrat. Subsequently, independent departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in addition to the pending criminal case under the Punjab Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975. Without conducting a proper inquiry, the Inquiry Officer, through a report dated 18.11.2021, merely referred to the Petitioner’s involvement in the criminal case and recommended serious departmental action. Consequently, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 13.12.2021. The petitioner preferred an appeal against his dismissal, wherein he was provisionally reinstated with a direction to the department to conduct a de-novo inquiry vide order dated 25.04.2022. Meanwhile, the Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on 26.04.2022. In the de novo inquiry, identical allegations were served on the petitioner on 19.05.2022. He appeared before the Inquiry Officer and informed him of his acquittal in the criminal case. Nonetheless, while acknowledging the acquittal, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the petitioner’s mere involvement in a criminal case warranted departmental action. Relying on this report, the competent authority dismissed the petitioner from service on 16.06.2022. His departmental appeal and revision were subsequently dismissed on 06.04.2023 and 21.08.2023, respectively. The Service Tribunal also dismissed his appeal on 16.05.2024, leading to the present Civil Petition before the Supreme Court. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
