P L D 2002 Supreme Court 13 https://pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?

caseName=2002S3

P L D 2002 Supreme Court 13

Present: Sh.Riaz Ahmad, Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Javed Iqbal, JJ

ARIF GHAFOOR‑‑‑Petitioner

versus

MANAGING DIRECTOR, H.M.C., TEXILA and others‑‑‑Respondents

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.968 of 2000, decided on 11th July, 2001.

(On appeal, from the order dated 27‑4‑2000 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, in Appeal No. 1521(R of 1999).

(a) Civil service‑‑

‑‑‑‑'Disciplinary proceedings' and 'crtmina proceedings' as used in service matters)‑‑‑Distinguished‑‑‑Both the

proceedings cannot be termed as synonymous and interchangeable‑--'Disciplinary proceedings' and 'criminal
proceedings' are quite distinct from each other having altogether different characteristics and there is nothing
common between the adjudicative forums by whom separate prescribed procedure and mechanism is followed for
adjudication and both the forums have their own domain of jurisdiction‑‑ Decision of one forum would have no
bearing on the decision of other forum in any manner whatsoever and it would be a misconceived notion to
consider the acquittal in criminal trial as an embargo against disciplinary proceedings.

1996 SCMR 315 ref.

(b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Appeal before Service Tribunal‑‑‑Acquittal from criminal case‑‑ Scope‑‑‑Where the acquittal was not
on merits, the dictum laid down by Supreme Court in 2001 SCMR 269 and 1998 SCMR 2003 could not he made
applicable.

2001 SCMR 269 and 1998 SCMR 2003 distinguished.

(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4‑‑‑Dismissal from service‑‑‑Disciplinary proceedings
were initiated in accordance with law‑‑ After recording evidence, holding a comprehensive inquiry and affording
proper opportunity of hearing to the civil servant, major penalty was imposed by taking into consideration all pros
and cons of the matter including the nature of allegations and past conduct of the civil servant‑‑ Appeal before
Service Tribunal was dismissed‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Action taken by the Competent Authority was neither whimsical 'nor
arbitrary in nature, but was based on sound reasoning concrete and worthy of credible evidence and being
unexceptional did not call for interference and the Service Tribunal had rightly declined to do so‑‑‑Leave to appeal
was refused.

(d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Finding of fact‑‑‑Interference by Supreme Court‑‑‑Finding of fact recorded by Service Tribunal

1 of 3 12-Oct-19, 12:09 PM
P L D 2002 Supreme Court 13 https://pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2002S3

on the basis of record and evidence before the Service Tribunal cannot be interfered by Supreme Court.

Ch. Muhammad Azam v. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation and others 1991 SCMR 255 and Muhammad Nawaz v.
Divisional Forest Officer, Jauharabad and 2 others 1982 SCMR 880 ref.

Ibrahim Satti, Advocate. Supreme Court and Ejaz M. Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 11th July, 2001.

ORDER

JAVED IQBAL, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27‑4‑2000 passed by
learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been
dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was Foreman in H.M.C. Texila and served with
charge‑sheet containing serious allegations amounting to misconduct. The petitioner vehemently repudiated all the
allegations and resultantly an Enquiry Committee was constituted and found the petitioner guilty of all the charges
and final show‑cause notice was issued on 21‑7‑1998. The petitioner submitted his reply on 5‑8‑1998, and after
affording him opportunity of personal hearing, the Competent Authority imposed major penalty of dismissal vide
order dated 22‑10‑1998. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred departmental appeal, which was rejected. As a
last resort the Federal Service Tribunal was approached by way of appeal which has been dismissed.

3. It . is mainly contended by Mr. Ibrahim Satti. learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that the
learned Federal Service Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective and glaring illegalities
committed during enquiry were not considered without any rhyme and reason which resulted in serious miscarriage
of justice. It is also contended that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded enabling the petitioner to
repudiate the allegations levelled against him and on this score alone, the impugned judgment is liable to be set
aside. It is urged emphatically that the petitioner was acquitted of the charges by the Court of .competent
jurisdiction and accordingly disciplinary proceedings could not have been initiated on the same charges which
amounts to double jeopardy.

4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioner in the light of relevant provisions
of law and record of the case. We have minutely perused the impugned judgment. The enquiry report has been
examined with care and caution. Let we mention here at the outset while adverting to the main contention of Mr.
Ibrahim Satti, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner as mentioned hereinabove that "disciplinary
proceedings" and "criminal proceedings" by no stretch of imagination can be termed as synonymous and
interchangeable. The "disciplinary proceeding" and "criminal proceedings" are quite distinct to each other having
altogether different characteristics and there, is nothing common between the adjudicative forums by whom
separate prescribed procedure and mechanism is followed for adjudication and both the forums have their own
domain of jurisdiction. The decision of one forum would have no bearing on the decision of other forum in any
manner whatsoever. In the said background, it would be a misconceived notion to consider the acquittal in a
criminal trial as an embargo against disciplinary proceedings. The learned Federal Service Tribunal has rightly
referred the law as laid down in 1996 SCMR 315. It is worth mentioning that the factum of acquittal pressed time
and again into service was not on merits, but on the contrary it was an acquittal under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. and no
evidence worth the name could be produced by the prosecution to substantiate the allegations for the reasons best

2 of 3 12-Oct-19, 12:09 PM
P L D 2002 Supreme Court 13 https://pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2002S3

known to it. Be that as it may, the acquittal was not on merits and thus the dictum as laid down in 2001 SCMR 269
and 1998 SCMR 2003 heavily relied upon by Mr. Ibrahim Satti Advocate cannot be 8 made applicable in the
peculiar circumstances of the case as discussed hereinabove. Had the case been decided on merits and after
recording of evidence, the situation would have been different. At this juncture it is to be noted that the disciplinary
proceedings were initiated in accordance with law, after recording evidence holding a comprehensive enquiry and
affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner major penalty was imposed after having taking into
consideration all pros and cons of the matter including the nature of allegations and past conduct of the petitioner.
The action taken by the Competent Authority is neither whimsical nor arbitrary in nature, but is based on sound
reasoning, concrete and worthy of credence evidence and being unexceptional hardly calls for any interference and
learned Service Tribunal has rightly declined to do so. It is well‑settled by now that "where no substantial law,
muchless question of law of public importance, had been raised in appeal, a finding of Service Tribunal being a
finding of fact would not call for any interference by Supreme Court". In this regard reference can be made to the
case titled Ch. Muhammad Azim v. The Chief Engineer Irrigation and others 1991 SCMR 255. Even otherwise a
finding of fact recorded by Tribunal on the basis of record and evidence before Tribunal cannot be interfered by this
Court. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in the case titled Muhammad Nawaz v. Divisional
Forest Officer, Jauharabad and 2 others 1982 SCMR 880.

In the light of foregoing discussion, we are not inclined to, grant leave to appeal and accordingly the petition being
devoid of merits isle

Q.M.H./M.A.K./A-165/S Petition dismissed.

3 of 3 12-Oct-19, 12:09 PM